365 replies to this topic

[Haakon Magnusson]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

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.

I like, acceleration should be a quick and easy enhancement to lrms for long range. And to spare tiers 4 and 5 from long range lurmocapolypse, applies only when LOS

Navid A1, on 17 March 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

And this is the current spread values:

I have been trying to basic my archers sticking close to the lore... but this picture just makes me sad, so very sad. And squarely shoves the facts to my face.

Leave lrm5 spread as it is and equalize rest of them to lrm10 levels, boating lrm20s isn't really a thing

[VirtualRiot]

I've made the LRM !Science! threads in the past, and it seems clear to me that all launchers need to have the same spread, with smaller launchers having shorter cool down.
This gives mechs with lots of hardpoints the option of boating smaller launcherz for shorter cool down. But mechs with a few hardpoints are just as effective. Makes no sense to have 4lrm5 so more damage than 1lrm20.

Edited by VirtualRiot, 17 March 2016 - 04:35 AM.

[Lugh]

Novakaine, on 16 March 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

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

seeing a leaderboard with scores leading it around 1800 (rather than the 3800 of other events ) would lead to no more sales.

Haakon Magnusson, on 17 March 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

I like, acceleration should be a quick and easy enhancement to lrms for long range. And to spare tiers 4 and 5 from long range lurmocapolypse, applies only when LOS



I have been trying to basic my archers sticking close to the lore... but this picture just makes me sad, so very sad. And squarely shoves the facts to my face.

Leave lrm5 spread as it is and equalize rest of them to lrm10 levels, boating lrm20s isn't really a thing

LRM Apocalypse2 circa 2012 has already proven how untenable that concentration of pinpoint was for LRMs...

[NextGame]

flightpath arcs if you want additional variation between launchers.

Edited by NextGame, 17 March 2016 - 04:44 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

I think they should radically alter how Artemis interacts with LRMs.

Something like multiply the base spread of LRMs by about 1.5, then increase the spread bonus from artemis so the LOS spread is about the same as now, and also make Artemis double the velocity and lower the arc to a ballisitic arc. Since Artemis only works when you have LOS, LRMs will now be much, much more usable in direct fire engagements but a bit worse without LOS.

That has the following benefits:

• Rewards LRM users for getting into actual los (and therefore adding their armour to the teams tanking).
  
• Increases the value of larger launchers - because instead of being a bad choice Artemis becomes almost compulsory, and its cost is a lot less percentage wise on bigger launchers.
  
• Makes LRMs much more usable at higher tiers.

[Doman Hugin]

I've never undestood different spead for different launchers.

They have a weight increase for larger launchers - just like all other weapons.
They have a crit requirement increase for larger launchers - just like all other weapons.
They have increased cooldown for larger launchers - just like all other weapons.
They have increased heat for larger launchers - just like all other weapons.
THEY SPEAD DAMAGE GREATER FOR LARGER LAUNCHERS - LIKE ONLY MISSILE WEAPONS DO.

WHY???

[Lostdragon]

Good analysis. I think missiles also need to be able to be manually guided either with the normal reticle or with TAG when they don't have a lock and that missiles in flight should be able to be redirected to a new target that gets locked.

[Lugh]

Lostdragon, on 17 March 2016 - 05:05 AM, said:

Good analysis. I think missiles also need to be able to be manually guided either with the normal reticle or with TAG when they don't have a lock and that missiles in flight should be able to be redirected to a new target that gets locked.

Missiles did do this for a time. Not sure when it stopped because I don't LRM much.

[Nerdboard]

Can't be bothered to read all pages, so I might repeat what others already said.

Not only is this not news and hardly has been discovered only with the Archer launch but also is your analysis completely missing LRM countermeasures. Those are namely cover in combination with missile lock warning and AMS.

And this is where the larger missile racks shine. Two LRM 20 suffer a lot less from AMS fire than four LRM 10 or even 8 LRM 5. And if you do not chainfire those you get massive ghost heat. The same can be said for cover. Not sure how you play against LRM boats but usually when I get a missile lock warning I try to find a rock or tree to block those things for me. Now if the enemy Lurmer was not just randomly firing then I probably wont be able to block the first few. If its large missile racks thats a lot of hits. However if you annoy me with that chainfire bullcrap I'll probably be fast enough to block the last half of you salvo.

My personal experience (anywhere from tier3 to tier1 in both solo and groupQ as well as CW games) is that the LRM 5 boats are usually not as much of a danger as LRM15 boats (I'll admit to almost never seeing a 20). Not to mention all those idiots putting artemis on LRM5 boats... and hardly ever firing with line of sight. Another point where the larger racks shine (if you actually use line of sight).

Overall I'd say the initial analysis is flawed due to being incomplete. Maybe you can take these points into consideration and edit your conclusion into the original post.

[102_devill]

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

Multi-mode radar??? OMG!!! This is not a sim! Its too complicated for kids today!!! OMG! OMG!

And then you would have to add a radar warning receiver! And then you could have real role warfare and ambushes and playing cat and mouse and all that ****!

We don't want that!

We want a deathball-deathmatch-lazerboat-dakkaboat-oneclickkill-twichshooter.

If you want something cerebral go play DCS you goddamn elitist!

P.S. Just for the record: I am being ironic and I totally agree with the quoted post. Shared targeting without special equipment needs to go.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 16 March 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

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.

Well, not directly, no

Because if the larger racks where more competitive in some ways (but not objectively better), the Griffin and Kintaro still probably wouldn't use them because of tonnage concerns. the LRM5 is, in terms of tons:tubes, way more efficient.

In the case of the Archer, with 15 more tons available you still don't want to use larger launchers. In fact, you're more effective simply not spending that tonnage at all vs using larger launchers. Of course, you'd get ammo/engine/dhs/whatever instead with the tonnage, but when larger launchers are so bad that you simply won't consider using them at all vs. the small ones, there's a serious issue.

[Wintersdark]

Nerdboard, on 17 March 2016 - 05:45 AM, said:

My personal experience (anywhere from tier3 to tier1 in both solo and groupQ as well as CW games) is that the LRM 5 boats are usually not as much of a danger as LRM15 boats (I'll admit to almost never seeing a 20). Not to mention all those idiots putting artemis on LRM5 boats... and hardly ever firing with line of sight. Another point where the larger racks shine (if you actually use line of sight).

People being bad (artemis on lrm5 mechs, for example, and firing them without los) has no place in the discussion at all.

As to danger, my lrm5 mad dog disagrees. Enormously. It's pushing 10dps with non stop cockpit shake, heat neutral via lrms. It can group fire them all to penetrate AMS when needed (there's rarely AMS) and there's no "massive ghost heat" that way - some, but not a lot, it's just not heat neutral anymore.

Meanwhile, the LRM15's spread way, way more - more missiles flat out miss, many more hit arms/legs. They fire much slower. Sure, you get damage numbers, but you do way less useful damage.

Take em to the training grounds. Try a 2xlrm15 vs. 6xlrm5 mech. Look at how many missiles it takes on average to destroy a given mech. Repeat a few times.

The LRM5 mech will consistently kill in less time, with less missiles.

Less missiles = less tonnage/slots wasted on ammo. Less time+100% cockpit shake means opposing mech does less damage to your team.

[QuantumButler]

They really should just steal the lrm mechanics from Living Legends

[STEF_]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

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?

LOL, we are in the same wave.
After "What about doubling the speed, but to avoid OP use, let's add high spread at short ranges (the shorter the higher)?" and going to bed, I was thinking " and what about to give lrm acceleration".
+1

[QuantumButler]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 March 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

LOL, we are in the same wave.
After "What about doubling the speed, but to avoid OP use, let's add high spread at short ranges (the shorter the higher)?" and going to bed, I was thinking " and what about to give lrm acceleration".
+1

What they really should do is make lrms fast, tightly grouped, and pretty much direct fire, with indirect fire being as accurate as dumbfiring is now unless you have a spotter with TAG or NARC. No ballistic trajectory, similar flgiht path to streak missiles.

Turn them into a direct fire weapon with minimal guidance as they're supposed to be, make them actually fun to use.

Edited by QuantumButler, 17 March 2016 - 06:11 AM.

[STEF_]

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

What they really should do is make lrms fast, tightly grouped, and pretty much direct fire, with indirect fire being as accurate as dumbfiring is now unless you have a spotter with TAG or NARC.

Turn them into a direct fire weapon with minimal guidance as they're supposed to be, make them actually fun to use.

I'm agree that once lock is achieved, you should "fire and forget".

[Bishop Steiner]

Lugh, on 17 March 2016 - 04:40 AM, said:

LRM Apocalypse2 circa 2012 has already proven how untenable that concentration of pinpoint was for LRMs...

LRMpòcalypse 2012 wasn't because they were at LRM10 spread.

[QuantumButler]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:19 AM, said:

LRMpòcalypse 2012 wasn't because they were at LRM10 spread.

I thought it was because they did 1.5 damage each + bonus bugged splash damage and came down on your head vertically so virtually no cover was valid.

[Bishop Steiner]

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

What they really should do is make lrms fast, tightly grouped, and pretty much direct fire, with indirect fire being as accurate as dumbfiring is now unless you have a spotter with TAG or NARC. No ballistic trajectory, similar flgiht path to streak missiles.

Turn them into a direct fire weapon with minimal guidance as they're supposed to be, make them actually fun to use.

and so still largely inferior to true direct fire weapons?

And make all the weapons more of the Same-ish?

Can't say where I see that necessarily making them more "fun", in itself. Maybe it would. IDK.

I see why PGI went the route they did, because they tried to give things their own feel, but it certainly did leave it with issues, too. So maybe this would work.

I certainly wouldn't mind them redoing the indirect fire, but in Btech, using another mech as a spotter for indirect fire was the rule, not the exception, since they didn't even have NARC and TAG, essentially til the Clan Invasion. It should be less accurate, and probably with a bigger spread than now, without NARC or TAG, but it shouldn't be dumbfire inaccurate.

Regardless that would require degrees of changes, as would pretty much all the A+ ideas, that I doubt PGI would actually conceded to making.

QuantumButler, on 17 March 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

I thought it was because they did 1.5 damage each + bonus bugged splash damage and came down on your head vertically so virtually no cover was valid.

That would be correct. They did have a different flight pattern, I think back then, but it wasn't until the bugged dmg and hammer of gods on your head drop angle that they were an issue.

Speaking of old 2012 firing patterns....man I miss the old SRM launch patterns....

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 March 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 March 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

and so still largely inferior to true direct fire weapons?

And make all the weapons more of the Same-ish?

Can't say where I see that necessarily making them more "fun", in itself. Maybe it would. IDK.

I certainly wouldn't mind them redoing the indirect fire, but in Btech, using another mech as a spotter for indirect fire was the rule, not the exception, since they didn't even have NARC and TAG, essentially til the Clan Invasion. It should be less accurate, and probably with a bigger spread than now, without NARC or TAG, but it shouldn't be dumbfire inaccurate.

Regardless that would require degrees of changes, as would pretty much all the A+ ideas, that I doubt PGI would actually conceded to making.


That would be correct. They did have a different flight pattern, I think back then, but it wasn't until the bugged dmg and hammer of gods on your head drop angle that they were an issue.

Speaking of old 2012 firing patterns....man I miss the old SRM launch patterns....

When I mean "fast" i'm talking "near Gauss rifle projectile speeds"

Maybe give them abit of an arc, but not enough to get over taller cover.

Like in Mechwarrior Living Legends (RIP)