365 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

cazidin, on 26 May 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Maybe it's time a certain influential Steiner sent him a friendly reminder? Maybe one with a fondness for Urbanmechs? Maybe one who apparently draws amazing artwork in his spare time? A shame we don't know anyone like that.

I'm sure if such a person existed around these parts, that he already would have at least six hours ago.

[Bishop Steiner]

davoodoo, on 26 May 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Yes im aware, but then there must be some incentive to use anything lesser than your available tubes.

Lrm5s are meant for mechs that can't mount heavier.

As it's stands there opposite problem you list exists. Every track above the 5 pays a premium tonnage over the fives. And even with Artemis don't pattern as well.

But that's also why I would prefer them to pattern like lrm10s, not 5s, unless one is using Artemis.

[LordNothing]

the 10 is kind of a ripoff, its an extra ton over a pair of 5s and is worse! i kind of think the 5 and 10 need to have the same spread, and the 15 and 20 having a slightly larger spread. the 20 first and foremost needs to be a system that can stand on its own so you can flesh out an other wise moderate range build with a single rack.

Edited by LordNothing, 26 May 2016 - 04:01 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Malleus011, on 25 May 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

I see PGI noticed our concerns about the LRM system, realized it had been as issue for years, and swiftly and effectively addressed our concerns and acted to fix the issue.

Like always, right?

Well I'm too hopeful, I just clicked to news to look for anything XD

[wanderer]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 May 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

LRM5s would still have the DPS battle won though. The cooldown difference is huge, and really the only upside to larger launchers is hardpoints. Should be able to balance out their heat/recycle times, too.

If big launchers hit with the same grouping as LRM 5's, you'd still be in a good place There are times when you just want to get as many missiles-to-target at once as possible. There are certainly times where I get one shot before lock drops, and 3x15 should make more of an impression than 3x5!

Common sense would be making all LRMs cluster like LRM 10s, minimizing totally wasted missiles but giving some benefit to upgrades that improve spread regardless.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 26 May 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

If big launchers hit with the same grouping as LRM 5's, you'd still be in a good place There are times when you just want to get as many missiles-to-target at once as possible. There are certainly times where I get one shot before lock drops, and 3x15 should make more of an impression than 3x5!

Common sense would be making all LRMs cluster like LRM 10s, minimizing totally wasted missiles but giving some benefit to upgrades that improve spread regardless.

kind of like I recommended in the OP! Great minds!

[Navid A1]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 May 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

kind of like I recommended in the OP! Great minds!

no surprise. People agree on what makes sense.

The thing is how we can push this sense into paul's head?

[Bishop Steiner]

Navid A1, on 26 May 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

no surprise. People agree on what makes sense.

The thing is how we can push this sense into paul's head?

I hear it was all the rage in the 1800s....

[davoodoo]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

I hear it was all the rage in the 1800s....

Its lostech now...

[Gyrok]

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.


*EDIT*
Found this fascinating thread on Mechspecs, too



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

Make the spread universal per launcher.

So, LRM20 and LRM5 have the same spread as LRM10. Just make the cooldowns vary to preserve DPS. That way LRM20 does equal 4x LRM5.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gyrok, on 27 May 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

Make the spread universal per launcher.

So, LRM20 and LRM5 have the same spread as LRM10. Just make the cooldowns vary to preserve DPS. That way LRM20 does equal 4x LRM5.

yeah, that was literally my second suggestion, right under a 100 m/s velocity bump. And would go quite some way to helping.


Would still need to bring the cooldowns closer, too. But if they all needed Artemis to get the current LRM5 level grouping, and had LRM10 grouping without, then the LRM5 having a shorter cooldown might balance out against the Artemis Tax on multiple smaller launchers, what say you?

[Bishop Steiner]

So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (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.

[DONTOR]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 May 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

OMG DON...U TIER 2 BRO WHAT HAPPENED???

Sorry, always feel like capslocking when I see your name, lol

I've probably played 200 games since tiers were implemented, never been tier 1 lol.

[Mavairo]

MW2 lock on sounds make LRMS feel better... (so does MW2 HUD, and Bitchin' Betty...)

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (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.

I am allll for this.

[Alex Morgaine]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (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.

Love it, pm him instead of twitting cause of that 150 or whatever character limit. He might be more receptive if nay Sayers don't see his reply too. Lrms need dat love

[Steve Pryde]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (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.

+fire&forget lock on for line on sight targets.

[Fut]

Thanks for making this thread.
Although I stopped reading at page 10, it's been an entertaining read and I think that (some of) you guys really hit the nail on the head in regards to the issues with and possible solutions to current LRMs.

Really don't have anything to add to this, but I wanted to reiterate something that's been brought up numerous times in the forums: Removing indirect fire for LRMs is not a logical solution to the problem. "Direct Fire LRMs" will always be inferior to normal direct fire weapons. So please, people, stop suggesting this.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (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.

If we're voting, ^this, is what I'd like to see happen.
Hell, even just #1 being implemented would be a step in the right direction.

EDIT:
Actually thought of something to add, after reading Mole's post below mine.
PGI needs to add some LRM courses to the Academy for new players. One on LRM usage and one on LRM avoidance. It would go a long ways to stopping the tears if/when LRMs are ever fixed.

Edited by Fut, 27 May 2016 - 12:47 PM.

[Mole]

Some good ideas in this thread. But they will never fix LRMs. Because if they do, the forums will burn in a sea of fire spewed by the ******* who don't know the many ways to easily counter LRMs who come screaming "LRMS OP NOSKILL" as soon as they realize that the weapon system that they are even now insisting is OP NO SKILL has been buffed even in the slightest.

[Bishop Steiner]

Frosty Brand, on 27 May 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

Love it, pm him instead of twitting cause of that 150 or whatever character limit. He might be more receptive if nay Sayers don't see his reply too. Lrms need dat love

can't say I have ever seen him reply to a PM, tbh.

[Malleus011]

I'd love to see PGI fix LRMs, with some versions of the fixes we've talked about abundantly here.

Including, if possible, a major velocity increase for targets you have LOS on.

But ... I don't think PGI has the ability to implement such a major change. Looking at all the work they've done on the game over the last several years, they haven't show the capability to fix or change a core mechanic. Other than a few bits of CW, everything they've delivered to us has been minor tweaks on the original platform. I doubt they have the ability to fix LRMs the way we suggest even if they were listening to us and wanted to.