365 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Seriously. This is not about whether they are Trash Tier, or OP, no skills, or different skills, etc.

It's just basic common sense.

When dealing with BALANCE, 6x LRM5 should be equal to 2x LRM15 or 3x LRM10, and slightly inferior to, 2x LRM20.

But due to the cooldown and spread mechanics, if one does use LRMs, LRM5s, en masse, preferably 5-6, are the way to go. Be you in a Jenner IIC, a Mad Dog, or the Archer.

• IS LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.75s to 5.5s.
• IS LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.25s to 4.75s.
• IS LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 3.75s to 4.0s.
• Clan LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 5.0s to 6.5s.
• Clan LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.5s to 5.5s.
• Clan LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.0s to 4.5s.

Not sure offhand what the LRM5 base spread is. TBH. IS has a cooldown of 3.25 seconds, Clan, 3.5.

Heat? Supposedly one should run HOTTER using multiple 5s, but especially since Chainfire is a norm, it really doesn't seem to be much an issue, whereas I do know any mech running 2x LRM20, get toasty, rather fast. Part of that, I'm sure is the extra 2-4 tons one can save for DHS depending on build.

Anyhow, simple fact, 6x LRM5 whether Clan or IS, is resoundingly better than 2x LRM20, which is insane since you are comparing 12 tons (6 for clans) of weapons vs 20 (10 for Clan). And Artemis does little to matter.

Ideas?


LRMs. Add 100 m/s to base velocity.
Give ALL Launchers the same spread pattern (because mass, crits and slow cooldown is more than enough tax on the big launchers, already), Probably the LRM10 pattern, and a little tighter with Artemis.

Give LRMs another 100 m/s speed boost if they are homing on NARC'd or TAG'd enemies, and the hit pattern should be based on the Location the Mech is Tagged or NARC'd with the obvious changes for facing. (AKA if you are in front of a Mech that is TAG'd or NARC'd in the REAR RT, then the damage pattern should be focused around the FRONT RT as they take the shortest route to the designated area.)

Shorten Lock Time with LoS but make it more Pipper Dependant (I think it already has been tightened some that way, seems like I drop locks way easier now), increase them without LoS. Of course, NARC and TAG Would shorten the Lock again, but still be based on LoS/No LoS.

Then with LRMs being semi effective, we can stop worrying about stupid levels of quirks to achieve effectiveness, and maybe give it mild cooldown/heat gen quirks, and call it a day.

Or even Missile Lock speed/duration quirks.


*EDIT*
Found this fascinating thread on Mechspecs, too



https://www.mechspec...test-lrms.8298/

To summarize my current thoughts after 18 pages of discussion:
(mind you there are changes I would love to make, but realistically know that they won't)

1) Normalize All Launchers to LRM10 Spread, including the LRM5
2) Bring the Cooldown Closer together, but not identical.
3) Perhaps give smaller racks slightly shorter lock times
4) With Artemis, add 100 m/s velocity and tighten all size Launcher Spread to LRM5 level
5) Indirect fire without aid of NARC or TAG all Launchers use LRM15 or 20 spread to reflect general inaccuracy of unaided indirect fire
6) LoS LRM Launch in flatter trajectory, Indirect Fire in Rainbow Trajectory, and lose any Artemis Bonus unless target is actively TAG'd or NARC'd.

Would enhance the Effectiveness of LRMs in general, while punishing BADs in sloppy LRMAssaults who expect people to hold locks for them, and also enhance usefulness of Legit Spotters, to some degree.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 May 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

NARC being location based should also mean that the destruction of the location should kill the NARC. That aside, I would love for the spread on all launchers to be decreased (a little more than you suggest at the high end at least) and crosshair position factor into where the missile head towards similar to MW4 so that more precise aiming could be done with missiles, not just with NARC and TAG (which could technically hurt your aim since missiles currently aim center mass iirc).

Removing the necessity of TAG to lock on ECM mechs is also a must have so that TAG isn't a requirement for a good LRM boat. Near instant lock on targets within LoS would also be interesting since unlike MW4 you don't have wallhack radar with 1000m range or just allow them to have fire and forget missiles within LoS and only out of LoS shots require constant lock.

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Looks good and it would incentivize me to fit LRMs bigger than 5s

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 March 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

NARC being location based should also mean that the destruction of the location should kill the NARC. That aside, I would love for the spread on all launchers to be decreased (a little more than you suggest at the high end at least) and crosshair position factor into where the missile head towards similar to MW4 so that more precise aiming could be done with missiles, not just with NARC and TAG (which could technically hurt your aim since missiles currently aim center mass iirc).

Removing the necessity of TAG to lock on ECM mechs is also a must have so that TAG isn't a requirement for a good LRM boat. Near instant lock on targets within LoS would also be interesting since unlike MW4 you don't have wallhack radar with 1000m range or just allow them to have fire and forget missiles within LoS and only out of LoS shots require constant lock.

especially since they insist on TAG using an Energy Hardpoint, making mechs like the CPLT-A1 and ARC-5W literally incapable of carrying it. And the tonnage/range issues tied to forcing either to carry NARC, considering the overall mediocrity or LRMs to begin with, neither can really spare an offensive rack.

One more reason back in CB I pushed for "Utility" Slots. MGs, Flamers, TAG, AMS, all being in a similar pool. Would have removed the Gauss in the MG slot abuse, and oh yeah, made TAG available to mechs that need it most.

[Novakaine]

Oh what a surprise no leader board event for the Archer.
This makes us sad.

Edited by Novakaine, 16 March 2016 - 03:16 PM.

[Pjwned]

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

Seriously. This is not about whether they are Trash Tier, or OP, no skills, or different skills, etc.

It's just basic common sense.

When dealing with BALANCE, 6x LRM5 should be equal to 2x LRM15 or 3x LRM10, and slightly inferior to, 2x LRM20.

But due to the cooldown and spread mechanics, if one does use LRMs, LRM5s, en masse, preferably 5-6, are the way to go. Be you in a Jenner IIC, a Mad Dog, or the Archer.

• IS LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.75s to 5.5s.
• IS LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.25s to 4.75s.
• IS LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 3.75s to 4.0s.
• Clan LRM20 spread reduced to 6.2m (down from 7.0m). Cooldown of the weapon from 5.0s to 6.5s.
• Clan LRM15 spread reduced to 5.2m (down from 5.7m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.5s to 5.5s.
• Clan LRM10 spread reduced to 4.2m (down from 4.3m). Cooldown of the weapon from 4.0s to 4.5s.

Not sure offhand what the LRM5 base spread is. TBH. IS has a cooldown of 3.25 seconds, Clan, 3.5.

Heat? Supposedly one should run HOTTER using multiple 5s, but especially since Chainfire is a norm, it really doesn't seem to be much an issue, whereas I do know any mech running 2x LRM20, get toasty, rather fast. Part of that, I'm sure is the extra 2-4 tons one can save for DHS depending on build.

Anyhow, simple fact, 6x LRM5 whether Clan or IS, is resoundingly better than 2x LRM20, which is insane since you are comparing 12 tons (6 for clans) of weapons vs 20 (10 for Clan). And Artemis does little to matter.

Ideas?


LRMs. Add 100 m/s to base velocity.
Give ALL Launchers the same spread pattern (because mass, crits and slow cooldown is more than enough tax on the big launchers, already), Probably the LRM10 pattern, and a little tighter with Artemis.

Give LRMs another 100 m/s speed boost if they are homing on NARC'd or TAG'd enemies, and the hit pattern should be based on the Location the Mech is Tagged or NARC'd with the obvious changes for facing. (AKA if you are in front of a Mech that is TAG'd or NARC'd in the REAR RT, then the damage pattern should be focused around the FRONT RT as they take the shortest route to the designated area.)

Shorten Lock Time with LoS but make it more Pipper Dependant (I think it already has been tightened some that way, seems like I drop locks way easier now), increase them without LoS. Of course, NARC and TAG Would shorten the Lock again, but still be based on LoS/No LoS.

Then with LRMs being semi effective, we can stop worrying about stupid levels of quirks to achieve effectiveness, and maybe give it mild cooldown/heat gen quirks, and call it a day.

Or even Missile Lock speed/duration quirks.

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.

I would support missiles flying faster at longer range, so that their speed ramps up when they fly farther, but simply making them faster at all ranges is too much.

[Lyoto Machida]

Sounds nice but won't happen. There will be so many tears over 250m/s LRMs...

[Wintersdark]

I admit, I haven't run is LRM's in a long time. But my Archers, in pursuit of my "Starting with optimized but relatively lore correct builds" MO, have all featured lrm15 and lrm20 launchers out of the gate...

And what a phenomenal waste of tonnage. Big Clam launchers are bad too, but at least they aren't huge weapon systems. Those LRM15 and 20 launchers take up a major portion of even a seventy ton mech's payload space even before you consider ammo, and they woefully underperform - even by LRM standards.

Meanwhile, stacking on 4-6 LRM5's is more tonnage efficient and simply more efficient a weapon system overall.

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.

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 March 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[Wintersdark]

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.

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.

[OznerpaG]

all LRM launchers mounted on a single mech should be combined into a single launcher which means they are NEVER able to be chain-fired - you fire 1, you always fire them all. that means a single LRM20 is always better than quad LRM5s

LRMs should all have the same cooldown - maybe 4 or 5sec. this would need to be experimented with to make them fair

LRMs w/o Artemus - 2sec lock-on, target designated by TAG/NARC reduced to 1sec lock-on

LRMs w/Artimus - 1sec lock-on, target designated by TAG/NARC reduced to INSTANT lock-on

Edited by JagdFlanker, 16 March 2016 - 03:30 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 March 2016 - 03:32 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

Its the pilots not the mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

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

Its the pilots not the mech.

Yes, Tier 1 overlord, show us your comp skills in it.

While of course ignoring the actual argument, or contributing anythign of use...because realyl all you are tryign to do is take shots at people to mask your own insecurity. Well, feeling more macho now?

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.

Except then they do things like...give the ARC-2R (2x LRM20 stock) 3 M Hardpoints, while the ARC-5W which comes with smaller racks (2x LRM15, 2x SRM4) gets.... 9.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 March 2016 - 03:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

The Kintaro and Griffin wasn't a hint?

The latter is used for comp play, and doesn't even touch LRMs there (not that it couldn't run them in pub matches but whatever) while the former... while trollish with LRM5 usage still isn't even much of a thing (too big for its britches).

So... I don't see how this wasn't obvious.

[Steve Pryde]

Lyoto Machida, on 16 March 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Sounds nice but won't happen. There will be so many tears over 250m/s LRMs...

So long as lrms work as indirect fire weapon, yes. PGI should just copy&paste the lrm-system from Mechwarrior 4.

[RedDevil]

Standardizing the spread and rate of fire among launchers does make sense.

For speed I still wish you could fire direct or indirect.
-Direct fire would get a significant speed boost.
-Indirect would be the slow, high arc we experience now when shooting at longer ranges.

Artemis would make your spread and direct fire speed even better.
Narc and Tag would affect your indirect fire.

Edited by RedDevil, 16 March 2016 - 04:31 PM.

[Steve Pryde]

RedDevil, on 16 March 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

Standardizing the spread and rate of fire among launchers does make sense.

For speed I still wish you could fire direct or indirect.
-Direct fire would get a significant speed boost.
-Indirect would be the slow, high arc we experience now when shooting at longer ranges.

Artemis would make your spread and direct fire speed even better.
Narc and Tag would affect your indirect fire.

+flight arc change for lrms on target line of sight so that they fly directly to the target and not that stupid curve.

And pls, make them fire and forget weapons, facetanking on higher tiers is just a deathwish to focus u down.

[Lyoto Machida]

RedDevil, on 16 March 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

Standardizing the spread and rate of fire among launchers does make sense.

For speed I still wish you could fire direct or indirect.
-Direct fire would get a significant speed boost.
-Indirect would be the slow, high arc we experience now when shooting at longer ranges.

Artemis would make your spread and direct fire speed even better.
Narc and Tag would affect your indirect fire.

Well, it has been suggested many times over the years but nobody at PGI cares or knows how to make it happen, so...

[Helsbane]

One can easily attribute the disparity of tubes per ton declining as launcher size increases to internal reloading mechanisms required to cycle more ammo into the tubes. That basically requires more of the internal space, and thus tube count, to be eaten by servos, revolving tube chambers, feed belts / conveyor systems.

Thinking like this helps me get past the arbitrary BS weights assigned to the weapons 30 years ago...

I do agree that LRMs need something to bring them up to par with direct fire weapon systems, but unfortunately, any alteration that would make them viable will drown us all in a sea of tears from the players that can't figure out little things like cover....