365 replies to this topic

[xVLFBERHxT]

This 1000 damage comes with kills, kill most damage and solo kills too in one wave/ one match were you engage/ distract or soften the enemy for your TEAMMATES.

its a matter of combined arms and teamplay i think.

Edited by TrapJaw80, 16 March 2016 - 10:28 PM.

[Imperius]

TrapJaw80, on 16 March 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

Yes, but this 1000 damage comes with kills, kill most damage and solo kills too in one wave/ one match were you engage/ distract or soften the enemy for your TEAMMATES.

Sorry I'll take 1000 DMG direct fire player over "Get me lokz plz patato lord".

1000 DMG to CT's (or ST depending on the meta build of certain mechs) > 1000 DMG to CT's Arms ST's... even legs

[Imperius]

I'm going to stop posting in this thread after this post.

LRM's are just crap, sorry the truth hurts end of discussion.

Edited by Imperius, 16 March 2016 - 10:35 PM.

[xVLFBERHxT]

Sorry but its not about "get me locks" or "lock plz" crowd in pug matches... never do that in pugs. Go for your own locks, use tag and brawl with your LRM´s. No one sad its easy to use them.

In a team it could be a different story.

[Aresye]

Lugin, on 16 March 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

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.

Please understand that when I say, "indirect fire," I'm not talking about dumb-firing without a lock. Indirect fire is when you use anything besides yourself to acquire a lock.

In the case of MWO, you can currently lock and fire LRMs indirectly using:
- Shared Targeting "R"
- UAV
- TAG
- NARC

What I am proposing is to remove the ability to acquire missile locks via shared targeting, for 3 reasons:
1. It contributes to poor gameplay, as players hide behind cover and rely on teammates for locks.
2. The TT mechanic is designed for a dedicated spotter, and has movement/engagement penalties (i.e. You can't run around in a light mech holding perfect lock for a teammate whilst simultaneously engaging 3-4 mechs like you can in MWO.)
3. TAG, UAV, and NARC offer more than enough indirect fire options.

As long as shared targeting allows you to get LRM locks, they can never be buffed to the point of viability without becoming drastically overpowered. It's been attempted many times in the past, each time with disastrous results, which is why LRMs are so laughably ineffective nowadays.

Edited by Aresye, 16 March 2016 - 10:56 PM.

[DrRedCoat]

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.

This is more or less what I've thought for awhile. I'm assuming the reason PGI implemented spotting was to create another avenue for encouraging teamwork. But seeing how any mechwarrior worth their weight will target whoever they're fighting, there's usually an abundance of targets for a LRM boat to chose from once the teams collide meaning little to no actual coordination is going on. Forcing the use of Narc or TAG would, ideally, mean that someone using them is making an active effort to spot and would coordinate with the team appropriately. Assuming that the reason for indirect fire is to encourage teamwork, this seems like a viable solution to maintain that goal.

[Aresye]

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.

If you buff the speed, tighten the spread, and make them fire and forget (vs. holding lock), then LRMs CAN be effectively used as a direct fire weapon.

As a competitive player, I have absolutely ZERO bias against LRMs. You could literally take an entire team of the best LRM pilots, with NARC support, plentiful UAVs, advanced target decay, etc, and you still won't be able to do anything against a direct fire competitive team. It's been tried.

When I say you can't buff the speed and/or spread without making LRMs drastically overpowered, I'm not talking as if it will somehow become a threat to the meta game and/or competitive play. It won't. Trust me. I've played through the LRMageddons, but the techniques to defeat them haven't changed.

The thing that DOES change however, is the amount of crying from the lower tiers, because for anybody in the T5-T3 queues, all they're ever going to see is LRMs. They'll round a corner, get seen by ONE player, and instantly have 11 streams of missiles (that are now flying faster) home in on them, and it's going to suck. Every game.

[kesmai]

If there is a proof psr being just a xp bar it is this thread.

demanding a buff without getting rid of passive shared targetting is stupid. But hey you bought a new toy and want it to be whatever you expected, except you should have known what you will get if you even played the game during the last 6 months.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

you know, there is a way out of this

make C3 an actual module - and when you're at it, active and passive radar modes

[TheCharlatan]

I'd divide this issue in two sub-issues:

• balance between launchers (5-10-15-20).
  
• LRM general balance.

While the former issue should be solved ASAP (small launchers being waaaaaay more effective), the latter is a complex problem: we all know that LRMs are lethal against noobs, while being a lot less effective against skilled players.
The various buffs Bishop proposed are sound, but would generate incredible amounts of QQ in the lower tiers.

I'd only keep the 100m/s buff to direct fire and give LRMs an "in-mounted" TAG that negates ECM and direct missiles to specific components. Make the 1 ton TAG a much stronger version with extra range and a stronger signal.

[DrRedCoat]

Thunderbird Anthares, on 16 March 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

you know, there is a way out of this

make C3 an actual module - and when you're at it, active and passive radar modes

Man, I could see C3 being a real pain to implement considering the whole master/slave unit relationship and very few games consisting of complete 12-mans that can coordinate beforehand and choose mechs that could build that network (to say nothing of how you would set that system up once in-game with multiple masters and so on...). However, if some version of C3 could be implemented, that would introduce a potentially very cool game dynamic involving hunting/protecting your system master(s) and attempts to break down the network.

[Navid A1]

How about this (quick mock up, there may be mistakes):





And this is the current spread values:

[Thunderbird Anthares]

DrRedCoat, on 17 March 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

Man, I could see C3 being a real pain to implement considering the whole master/slave unit relationship and very few games consisting of complete 12-mans that can coordinate beforehand and choose mechs that could build that network (to say nothing of how you would set that system up once in-game with multiple masters and so on...). However, if some version of C3 could be implemented, that would introduce a potentially very cool game dynamic involving hunting/protecting your system master(s) and attempts to break down the network.

or they could just make a "C3", give it its own rewards for running it like it would deserve, and call it a day


Mechwarrior Living Legends did this, it works goddamn great

[saberrider]

Damn it Bishop, thanks for starting that topic!
I so hope they make the LRM 20 a good weaponsystem, because at the moment it is really really bad.
An enemy mech with 2 LRM20 launchers should put the fear of god into me. But if I see one (every 50 games...), I just cant stop laughing.
It would be great to see Mad Dogs, Catapults and Archers running with these huge launchers and you actually have to fear them. But, all we are see are LRM5 launchers all over they place, making the feel and look of all this LRM Mechs just silly.

The ineffectiveness of this weapons was one of my mainreasons to not buy the archer.
I play a lot of mixed builds (and doing pretty good with them in Tier 2, even crawling into direction of Tier 1). It would be great to have the choice to put a single LRM20 on a mech without becoming a laughing stock.

So, thanks again Bishop, I hope this discussion will bring some changes.

Edited by saberrider, 17 March 2016 - 05:00 AM.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

well, people keep complaining about endless missile rain

if LRM15/20's were viable, we would only have the occasional blob, not endless missile rain

still need to get rid of the ridiculous "you have atleast 5 seconds to get to cover before the filthy LRM noob's missiles get to you, so you might wanna start heading towards some rock or something" situation

Edited by Thunderbird Anthares, 17 March 2016 - 01:59 AM.

[theta123]

Thunderbird Anthares, on 17 March 2016 - 01:59 AM, said:

still need to get rid of the ridiculous "you have atleast 5 seconds to get to cover before the filthy LRM noob's missiles get to you, so you might wanna start heading towards some rock or something" situation

Comments like this, proves you are not capable of entering the LRM discussion

Simular to some people's behaviour here and utter denial LRMS are in need of work/buffing.

I have seen this situation in so many videogames, where one side is obviously overpowered, and the other is underpowered. The side who is underpowered, starts a discussion to bring things more up to balance. The side that is overpowered, brings out ridiculous excuses that "everything is fine" or do anything to de-rail the discussion.
This mostly happend in WW2 games, were the german/axis team was always overpowered

In MWO case, it is simular to World of tanks and the SPG branch. People were always butthurt, when artillery took their tank out. Reality was, it was one of the most difficult classes to play, and they were almost useless in close range. AND unlike in MWO, they couldnt escape and had zero health/armor. Yet people kept on complaining, and they got nerfed to oblivion...And got nerfed even more...And then some more. (And then you see the irony, people complain about the defending/camping team always winning vs the attacking team, guess what wrecked Defenses in every war situation? ARTILLERY)

And here in MWO, people are buthurt about getting killed by LRMS. Yet when i play, i get killed most of the time by laser vomit and meta builds. Infact rarely, do i get killed by LRMS, even now with the archer that is released.

And now that i am using the archer, i find out indeed, that this thread is completly justified.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

theta123, on 17 March 2016 - 02:24 AM, said:

Comments like this, proves you are not capable of entering the LRM discussion

Simular to some people's behaviour here and utter denial LRMS are in need of work/buffing.

I have seen this situation in so many videogames, where one side is obviously overpowered, and the other is underpowered. The side who is underpowered, starts a discussion to bring things more up to balance. The side that is overpowered, brings out ridiculous excuses that "everything is fine" or do anything to de-rail the discussion.
This mostly happend in WW2 games, were the german/axis team was always overpowered

In MWO case, it is simular to World of tanks and the SPG branch. People were always butthurt, when artillery took their tank out. Reality was, it was one of the most difficult classes to play, and they were almost useless in close range. AND unlike in MWO, they couldnt escape and had zero health/armor. Yet people kept on complaining, and they got nerfed to oblivion...And got nerfed even more...And then some more. (And then you see the irony, people complain about the defending/camping team always winning vs the attacking team, guess what wrecked Defenses in every war situation? ARTILLERY)

And here in MWO, people are buthurt about getting killed by LRMS. Yet when i play, i get killed most of the time by laser vomit and meta builds. Infact rarely, do i get killed by LRMS, even now with the archer that is released.

And now that i am using the archer, i find out indeed, that this thread is completly justified.

i actually have no idea what you just said here...
you are (wrongly) judging my skill or capability to assess the situation from 1 comment which is... agreeing with you?

granted, im salty and ironic, but its not that hard to read the meaning behind it

[ImperialKnight]

PGI will continue to pretend LRMs don't exist. It's not as if they have not tried before, for those who still remember the LRM-pocalypse.

You guys are forgetting that there are Tier 1 through 5 players that deal with very different levels of skill, map awareness, mech builds. Making LRMs more viable for Tier 1/2 play is just going to cause a massive outcry at Tier 3/4/5.

[Thunderbird Anthares]

i thought balancing is supposed to be done for the top end, not low end - because if balanced for the low end, we end up with silly metas and broken builds

just a thought

[Damia Savon]

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.

Please shut up before you make yourself look more like a tool.

BAP increases sensor range by 25% which would be good but trying to fire LRMs at long range is silly unless you know there is no cover around. It decreases target acquisition by 25% which is moderately useful. It can counter ECM but the range is so short that you might get a salvo of missiles off before they are within your minimum range.

Artemis helps a lot but only within LOS. LRMs are so slow that you require a huge amount of facetime until LRMS hit. Hope you can spread damage like a champ without losing that lock.

Tag helps too but you sacrifice one of your valuable secondard weapon slots and again you have to keep it constantly on target. If you can keep the tag laser on a target face to face while twisting then you have mad skills.

NARC can help but is very short range so best used by other mechs. You can get some people who like NARCing for LRM boats and LRMS get helped a lot by them but people would rather do direct damage and take SRMs instead.

Command Consoles can only be used by heavy and assault mechs and weigh three tons. If they gave more bonuses it might be worth it but right now they are dead weight and only useful in assaults.

There are LRM range modules, but those are silly since you, ironically, don't want to fire long range missiles at long range. There are cooldown modules which do help a lot but don't mitigate the heat build up of firing a lot of LRM5 or the silly hot LRM20s.

I don't know about Clan crap because well... stupid Clans.

Lastly, LRM pilots know all about these tools and regularly run most, if not all, on our mechs. Guess what? LRMs still are third tier. Show me another weapon system that requires a bunch of stuff to be added to your mech to make it perform at the minimum.

Indirect fire, while nice, is overrated. You waste tons of ammo firing indirectly because people cannot hold locks. That is why people like me say you need to stay close to your team to cut missile flight time before you lose your locks. You want to get LOS yourself if you can, so you can exchange one lrm salvo for three laser vomit alphas.