365 replies to this topic

[ArmandTulsen]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

adapt or die.

This sentiment is all fine and dandy for top level competitive play, but the focus of balance and viability is across the entire spectrum. It should be targeting the average, not the top 5%.

[wanderer]

LRMs are both the easiest to encourage the most fundamental part of MWO play and the easiest to soft and hard counter.

That is, because LRMs love red doritoes, people naturally all shoot towards a targeted player- which means focused fire, the most important thing. It "calls a target" without actually doing so. Thus, it's a newbie-destroyer because teamwork is OP.

Later on, people just learn to shoot the same target with more effective weapons and more importantly less scattering, meaning LRMs generally only are a better choice when they can take a line to the target everyone else can't, such as choke points or other spots with limited lines of fire.

Of course, the result of so many newbies being traumatized gave us things like radar dep and ECM (and AMS), meaning an already inferior weapon has tools that degrade both it's accuracy and damage (and it already scatters part of it's damage often to the point of missing entirely).

It means the LRM is the most likely to do things right (by accident) early, but it falls off the charts first because of it's flaws.

Edited by wanderer, 18 March 2016 - 11:11 AM.

[Snuggles Time]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

adapt or die.

You are missing the point here. I'm in the bracket with the meta chasing try-hards, for me LRMS became a thing of the past in T3. To make LRMS viable in T1/2 matches it will become Lurm-a-gedon in the lower tiers, and to balance in the lower tiers will only dig a deeper grave in the higher ones.

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 10:32 AM, said:

A competent player with a competent weapon layout is already enough to make a T4/T5 player's life a living hell, as many alt account seal-clubbings can attest to. What's the difference if it's being missiled, ballistic'd, or lasered to death, other than the latter two will kill them faster?

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

LRMs are both the easiest to encourage the most fundamental part of MWO play and the easiest to soft and hard counter.

That is, because LRMs love red doritoes, people naturally all shoot towards a targeted player- which means focused fire, the most important thing. It "calls a target" without actually doing so. Thus, it's a newbie-destroyer because teamwork is OP.

Later on, people just learn to shoot the same target with more effective weapons and more importantly less scattering, meaning LRMs generally only are a better choice when they can take a line to the target everyone else can't, such as choke points or other spots with limited lines of fire.

Of course, the result of so many newbies being traumatized gave us things like radar dep and ECM (and AMS), meaning an already inferior weapon has tools that degrade both it's accuracy and damage (and it already scatters part of it's damage often to the point of missing entirely).

It means the LRM is the most likely to do things right (by accident) early, but it falls off the charts first because of it's flaws.

Exactly what I am getting at.

[wanderer]

So, you're saying because LRMs encourage people to do something right first, making them actually good as well is going to be some kind of disaster?

"It kills newbies because it naturally encourages people to do the right thing." should never be a reason for a weapon system to be bad.

[Bishop Steiner]

Snuggles Time, on 18 March 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are missing the point here. I'm in the bracket with the meta chasing try-hards, for me LRMS became a thing of the past in T3. To make LRMS viable in T1/2 matches it will become Lurm-a-gedon in the lower tiers, and to balance in the lower tiers will only dig a deeper grave in the higher ones.





Exactly what I am getting at.

You know adapt or die actually goes many ways. NOt jsut talking abou tNoobs learning to adapt and protect themselves against LRMs...but the LRMs themselves.

It is unacceptable for a whole class of weapons to be worthless in higher tiers. So if buffing the current mechanic makes it untenable for the Underhive, (though in fairness, when doesn't the underhive cry about lrms, no matter how bad they are?) then it's incumbent on PGI to adapt and if need be, rewrite the mechanic so that even if they are never a "meta" weapon, they are viable, in ALL tiers.

[Snuggles Time]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

You know adapt or die actually goes many ways. NOt jsut talking abou tNoobs learning to adapt and protect themselves against LRMs...but the LRMs themselves.

It is unacceptable for a whole class of weapons to be worthless in higher tiers. So if buffing the current mechanic makes it untenable for the Underhive, (though in fairness, when doesn't the underhive cry about lrms, no matter how bad they are?) then it's incumbent on PGI to adapt and if need be, rewrite the mechanic so that even if they are never a "meta" weapon, they are viable, in ALL tiers.

Agreed, but the real question is how to do that?

[Thunderbird Anthares]

i think we've thrown up pretty much every suggestion we could have at this point, missile velocity, spread, large launcher tonnage and missile warning being probably the most prominent by far

getting anything resembling an official acknowledgment or response would be another step

[wanderer]

Honestly, the first things LRMs need are better accuracy and more efficient (not more raw) damage.

Higher velocity, tighter clustering on the 10+ tube launchers. That's the first and most effective fixes.

[Roadkill]

Snuggles Time, on 18 March 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

Agreed, but the real question is how to do that?

This is going to sound odd, but I think it's true.

Make them more like direct fire.

1. Require equipment for indirect fire. TAG or NARC. Sure, that means indirect fire will all but vanish, but it also means that TAG and NARC will become more valuable in organized play.

2. Different arcs for different firing modes. LOS-fired LRMs should have a pretty flat arc - just enough to clear intervening Mechs. Indirectly-fired LRMs should arc up a little higher than the current arc.

3. Different spreads for different firing modes. LOS-fire LRMs should be a pretty tight bunch. Indirectly fired LRMs should be in the current LRM-15 range. (LRM-20 is too wide, clearly, because of how badly it already sucks.)

4. Speed them up. A lot. LOS-fired LRMs should be AC/20 velocity if not higher. They can't be aimed and we've just taken away (for the most part) indirect fire, so LOS-fired LRMs need to be beefy. I'd even use the higher speed for indirectly fired LRMs provided the arc is high enough, though it would probably be easier to have indirectly fired LRMs be slower. Perhaps SRM speed.

5. Standardize cooldown and spread across all launchers. Smaller launchers already have the only advantage they need in both tonnage and heat - adding cooldown and spread to that simply makes larger launchers pretty pointless.

[GreenHell]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

So if buffing the current mechanic makes it untenable for the Underhive, then it's incumbent on PGI to adapt and if need be, rewrite the mechanic so that even if they are never a "meta" weapon, they are viable, in ALL tiers.

There is also wide variance in viability within the different LRM launchers themselves, which complicates things further. I think we can all agree that 4 LRM-5's are FAR better than 1 LRM-20 even with Artemis equipped. They're lighter, take up less total slots, have VASTLY superior spread and add up to nearly double the DPS. If you have the hardpoints, then I see absolutely no reason to take the Art-20 vs 4x5's.

Personally, I currently do see one place where the LRM-5 "might" be able to be a threat in a higher tier. It's the 0.5 second "Infinite Chain". Based on mechs with missle CD quirks, you could fit them to have a perfect chainfire timing. The effect on an enemy is probably the most annoying thing ever and shakes the cockpit rather badly, while also doing (a mildly respectable) 10-DPS (up to -40% versus small lights due to spread).

It had a serious effect on my aim the first time I ran into that kind of build. I actually thought to myself during that match "Wow, I don't think I will be able to hit this guy while taking this fire from him. My aiming reticule is all over the place". Luckilly, he was the last mech and my faster allies tore him up for me. It made me think about it though, and the thought I had was that maybe (and that's a big maybe) having ONE of them on a team could really help them out with effectively taking someone out of the fight due to simply not being able to aim properly. An odd form of "stunlock" if you will, similar to flamming someone into shutting down.

Of course, I'm no expert and don't claim to be one. This is just my own opinion on the LRM-5. I don't think they're as bad as some people claim, but they deffinitely are NOT as strong as other people claim. I think a few VERY small buffs would see them in a good place.

-EDIT- I was thinking about this after writing it, and remembered something I heard while listening to a MercStar stream after the Flammer change. Someone on their TeamSpeak was talking about how to measure the Flammers effectiveness, even though it does no actual damage. They said that in order to justify the tonnage spent on Flammers that do no damage, they instead need to STOP a certain ammount of damage from the enemy they are flamming. They threw out a damage figure of 400 blocked damage per match = viable Flammers. If you were to use the same philosophy with LRM-5 chain, then stopping someone doing damage should be counted as another benefit.

Edited by GreenHell, 18 March 2016 - 01:55 PM.

[Moomtazz]

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

That is, because LRMs love red doritoes, people naturally all shoot towards a targeted player- which means focused fire, the most important thing. It "calls a target" without actually doing so. Thus, it's a newbie-destroyer because teamwork is OP.

I see this the opposite way. Since LRMs allow newbies to easily focus fire, they are more of a hazard to the newbies on the other team than they should be. Those newbies on the other team do not know how to avoid LRMs and likely do not have 6-million C-bills invested in Radar Derp.

Hell if they just removed the mechanic of multiple mechs being able to rain on a single target with the push of the R key, I'd be more than happy with buffing LRMs in other ways.

[C E Dwyer]

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

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

It's been put off a week for drunken Irish American day, but lol can you honestly see any one getting close to the score of the other three ?

[C E Dwyer]

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.

This has been a given for years Bishop, its another PGI, mechanic where quantity is better than size, only it gets worse as quantity is also the quality.

Another stunning lead developer fail.

Though maybe something will get done about it, as your about the only forum Warrior that gets listened to.

[wanderer]

Quote

Make them more like direct fire.

1. Require equipment for indirect fire. TAG or NARC. Sure, that means indirect fire will all but vanish, but it also means that TAG and NARC will become more valuable in organized play.

No. It'll just eliminate them completely, because at that point, all LRMs require multiple tons of otherwise useless equipment to be anything but an inferior direct-fire weapon system.

TAG is a garbage system for spotters, as it requires constant face time and drops as soon as the TAG-user has to shift away. That leaves NARC, and to reliably use it, multiple NARCs. 4+ tons of equipment, per spotter, just to give you fully-functional LRMs. Otherwise, you have something that is best replaced with SRMs or simply an effective ranged weapon system.

You know, like what organized players generally use anyway.

[wanderer]

Quote

Hell if they just removed the mechanic of multiple mechs being able to rain on a single target with the push of the R key, I'd be more than happy with buffing LRMs in other ways.

They do as you go up in skill levels. Then multiple Mechs rain on a single target without needing the R key. Only replace "rain" with "hail of pinpoint-accurate focused damage that kills them for stupid much, much faster."

Seriously. If you can't learn how to stay out of the rain, you're target practice for everything else. As is oft said here, every time someone starts a "nerf LRMS" topic, we get to know another noob.

[Andi Nagasia]

ArmandTulsen, on 18 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

This sentiment is all fine and dandy for top level competitive play, but the focus of balance and viability is across the entire spectrum. It should be targeting the average, not the top 5%.

Snuggles Time, on 18 March 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are missing the point here. I'm in the bracket with the meta chasing try-hards, for me LRMS became a thing of the past in T3. To make LRMS viable in T1/2 matches it will become Lurm-a-gedon in the lower tiers, and to balance in the lower tiers will only dig a deeper grave in the higher ones.

if its Just LOS fire being Augmented as per Myself and Bishops Ideas,
then Low level Pug Play wont Change too much, as most Low Level Pugs dont get their own locks,
also Any Low Level Pug that goes and Gets their own locks isnt likely to remain in that Low Level,

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

No. It'll just eliminate them completely, because at that point, all LRMs require multiple tons of otherwise useless equipment to be anything but an inferior direct-fire weapon system.

TAG is a garbage system for spotters, as it requires constant face time and drops as soon as the TAG-user has to shift away. That leaves NARC, and to reliably use it, multiple NARCs. 4+ tons of equipment, per spotter, just to give you fully-functional LRMs. Otherwise, you have something that is best replaced with SRMs or simply an effective ranged weapon system.

You know, like what organized players generally use anyway.

i dont think so, but first some things need to happen,
1) new rewards need to be added that Give Scouts a reason to Scout,
2) some LRM stats need to be reworked (LOS) such as, +Velocity, -Spread, ect.
then i think we would have a better more balanced System,
iif it came with New rewards that rewarded scouting, then

[Moomtazz]

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

They do as you go up in skill levels. Then multiple Mechs rain on a single target without needing the R key. Only replace "rain" with "hail of pinpoint-accurate focused damage that kills them for stupid much, much faster."

Seriously. If you can't learn how to stay out of the rain, you're target practice for everything else. As is oft said here, every time someone starts a "nerf LRMS" topic, we get to know another noob.

Two scenarios:
1. Players hitting R to automatically consolidate their fire with no need to aim or even see the target
2. Players needing to see a target and, if that target is one of many, decide to switch to the same target as others on his team?

Do you see any difference in the two scenarios?

[wanderer]

Yep. The latter becomes near automatic in skilled play and is far, far more efficient, while the first is a scattered hail of damage that can be stopped by most competent players before accumulating critical damage with plentiful time given to reach cover. prevented entirely by ECM, and reduced by AMS.

[Reno Blade]

Adding the last PTS-3 targeting mechanics into the game will help LRMs quite a lot.
Then adding things like heat-scale-effects from tabletop which reduces agility, speed and targeting would also help to balance all weapons and increase TTK overall.

The question is, do we increase speed, damage, cooldown? Or do we need to change the mechanics completely?
I think that the most annoying thing about LRMs is the shake and explosion effect if you get rained on. And the most annoying part using LRMs (besides not beeing able to lock on because of ECM) is the bad tracking and long staring-at-target-to-keep-the-lock.
So my changes to LRMs would be:
1. reduce shake by about 50%
2. reduce explosion effect by about 50%
3. increase travel speed by about 20-40%
4. increase cooldown to 6+ seconds for all launchers
5. increase damage by about 20%
6. increase heat by about 50%
7. increase ghost heat by about 100%
8. match spread patterns for all launchers to have same size, just with less missiles


=
Less spam and less boating as a primary weapon, more "support" weapon.
Using same cooldown for all sizes will reduce the efficiency of LRM5 spam builds aswell as the increased spread to LRM5s (by using the same spread as bigger launchers) compared to bigger launchers

More changes to overall balance which are indirectly affecting LRMs also:

Non-weapon:

Spoiler

-remove/reduce the bonus of agility given by the engine and make the differences of variants count more that way.
> increases the effect/quirks of variants that push agility over mechs that have bigger engines (like the Timber).

- give Endo/Ferro some plus/minus effects (e.g. reduced/increased internal structure/armor)
> e.g. 20% more armor if you use Ferro, 10% less internal structure if using Endo

-optional: make endo/ferro on IS mechs become un-changeable
> further differentiate variants and inter-chassis differences

- increase internal structure (at least of the torso sections) of all mechs ( 25% - 50%)
> reduces the risk of very fast kills by coring mechs and makes disarming more usefull

- add Tabletop-like heat effects
> reduces the efficiency of mechs permanently running hot

- arm-mounted weapon bonus / hardpoint specific quirks
> increases usefullness of arm mounted weapons over torso-only builds (which then can be disarmed easier)

Weapons:
Imho there are "small" weapon changes to be made here:

Spoiler

1. Increase beam duration on all lasers by 15-20% to around 1.5 - 2 second (including pulse lasers to 1.2 to 1.7 or so)
Remember the outcry of Clan beam times, when the ERLL had 2 seconds or so?
This would also increase the difficulty of light mechs spamming MLaser or SPulse (such as firestarters) and bring them "down" to the difficulties their "prey" have shooting back.

2. couple all lasers into a shared Ghost Heat group
Limit of 2 Large, or 4 Med, or 1 Large + 2 Med.
No more 2 - 3 Large + 3 - 6 Med laser alphas = boating gone.

3. couple PPC and all Ballistics to a shared Ghost heat Group
Limit of 1 PPC or one Gauss, or one AC10 or 2 AC5. (any higher group number will be penalized by GH)
Prevents PPC + Gauss and PPC + AC5/10 Alphas and AC boating (not just dual AC20 or quad PPC boats)
And possibly increase Gauss Heat from 1 to 4+

4. start SRM ghost heat at >2 insted of >3
or increase ghost heat by about 50%
To reduce boating potential and make builds with less than 3+ ASRM6 comparable usefull (e.g. light and meds with 1-2 hardpoints)

This way we get certain disadvantages of boats:
- Laserboats can't alpha as much with the heat penalties
- Laserboats will have lot of face time - even more if spacing groups to prevent GH (see 6LLaser Stalkers with the old 2x LL limits)
- FLPPD (PPC/Ballistic) can't alpha as much with the heat penalties = reduce the FLPPD alpha size and dps
- strong FLPPD will have more facetime by spacing the shots to prevent GH
- big missile boats will run hot if not spreading the volleys, but smaller number of launchers are more efficient.

[Deathlike]

ArmandTulsen, on 18 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

This sentiment is all fine and dandy for top level competitive play, but the focus of balance and viability is across the entire spectrum. It should be targeting the average, not the top 5%.

Unfortunately, the "average" is actually pretty low.

When you see mechs "standing" in the entrance to the Thunderdome in Terra Therma (blocking others from entering/assisting)... watch them not consistently target what they are shooting at (within reason), target parts of a mech that is less than productive (leg is crit, but shooting CT anyways)... and just fail @ the simple "move as a group" and not block each other's firing lanes... you are making the limbo bar "excel" at the high jump.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 March 2016 - 03:18 PM.