159 replies to this topic

[Sader325]

The only LRMs worth using currently are LRM 5's both clan and inner sphere.

Why? Because your LRM 10, 15, and 20s still do the same effective damage as an LRM 5 simply because the spread of the LRM's is too damn high.

What other weapon gets punished this much for getting bigger? A clan UAC20 doesn't spread its bullets all over the place just because its an UAC20, every bullet from the uac20 follows the same exact path, varience comes from a moving target.

So I suggest a simple fix for all LRMs.

Clan LRMS:

Clan LRM 10, 15, and 20 will have the same spread as an LRM 5.

Nothing else will change, reduce the spread to 5's and you have now made LRM 20's just as viable as 5's.

Inner Sphere LRMs:

Innersphere LRM's will now fire in chains of 5's (think clan UAC)

IS LRM 20 will fire 4 groups of 5 with the same exact spread as an LRM 5. The rate of the chain fire can be adjusted, but for now lets say .1 seconds between groups.


There LRMs above 5s are now viable.

__________________________________________________________________

Navid A1, on 12 April 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree with the OP.

I made a similar suggestion a month ago in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5084012

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

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





And this is the current spread values:

Edited by Sader325, 13 April 2016 - 12:12 AM.

[gimmie]

Pretty legit changes proposed here. This would finally make seals running LRM20s not a complete waste of tonnage.

[Impyrium]

I'd also prefer LRMs to direct-fire instead of arcing... but I'm not sure if that's a popular opinion or not.

[Sheriff x]

Let's just bring long range missiles back to the old days of center torso only.

I don't even use long range missiles, but the amount of rage that the overall playerbase would experience... oh man.

[Alan Davion]

Dingo Red, on 12 April 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

I'd also prefer LRMs to direct-fire instead of arcing... but I'm not sure if that's a popular opinion or not.

For ranges up to about 500 meters I'd prefer direct fire, for over 500, they should have higher arcs until they reach the max arc/range of 1000 meters.

[2fast2stompy]

If AMS gets buffed to a level where it actually protects you at the same time, maybe.
Otherwise, we're looking at a 4xLRM15 mauler putting down 120 points of damage with a LRM5 spread in under 5 seconds, and it can fire continuously for 20 seconds without overheating, which is ridiculous, and it's probably not even the cheesiest build you can make.

[Impyrium]

Alan Davion, on 12 April 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

For ranges up to about 500 meters I'd prefer direct fire, for over 500, they should have higher arcs until they reach the max arc/range of 1000 meters.

MechWarrior 4 did this didn't it?

[Sader325]

2fast2stompy, on 12 April 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

If AMS gets buffed to a level where it actually protects you at the same time, maybe.
Otherwise, we're looking at a 4xLRM15 mauler putting down 120 points of damage with a LRM5 spread in under 5 seconds, and it can fire continuously for 20 seconds without overheating, which is ridiculous, and it's probably not even the cheesiest build you can make.

You mean people might actually have to gitgud?

Gimping a weapon system because people might have success with it against people who arent willing to use the numerous tools we have to counter them is not a reason to make a weapon outright terrible.

[Troutmonkey]

2fast2stompy, on 12 April 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

If AMS gets buffed to a level where it actually protects you at the same time, maybe.
Otherwise, we're looking at a 4xLRM15 mauler putting down 120 points of damage with a LRM5 spread in under 5 seconds, and it can fire continuously for 20 seconds without overheating, which is ridiculous, and it's probably not even the cheesiest build you can make.

Give all LRMs the same spread. Increase the spread of non-artemis launchers. Adjust spread as time goes on

[Steve Pryde]

- spread reduce (why punishing for taking bigger lrms, wtf?)
- all lrm same cooldown
- direct flying arc on line of sight (remove actual flying arc, only doable with tag/narc)
- same dmg spread like mechwarrior 4 lrms

Done.

[Impyrium]

Sader325, on 12 April 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

You mean people might actually have to gitgud?

Gimping a weapon system because people might have success with it against people who arent willing to use the numerous tools we have to counter them is not a reason to make a weapon outright terrible.

I'd say the biggest issue with LRMs have never been whether they're good or not, but just the fact that they're fire-and-forget jesus christ kids, not fire-and-forget, just very binary and don't offer a lot of control for the player weapons. You can sit behind a rock and lob LRMs and I don't think anyone really likes how little interaction the player actually gets with firing them.

They're not fun to fire, at least IMO, and they're not very fun for the player getting shot at.

That's why I'd want LRMs at closer ranges to direct-fire. This would ensure that LRMs actually had to be at range to be fully support weapon, and in closer range require some amount more of skill and positioning in order to use them. Plus, you would certainly have more reasoning to buff them if they required more skill to bring to bear.

Edited by Dingo Red, 13 April 2016 - 05:27 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

Steve Pryde, on 12 April 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

- spread reduce (why punishing for taking bigger lrms, wtf?)
- all lrm same cooldown
- direct flying arc on line of sight (remove actual flying arc, only doable with tag/narc)
- same dmg spread like mechwarrior 4 lrms

Done.

Disagree on the cooldown. The cool down should be more, but the heat efficiency on an LRM10 should be better than 2 LRM5s

Edited by Troutmonkey, 12 April 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[Navid A1]

I agree with the OP.

I made a similar suggestion a month ago in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5084012

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

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





And this is the current spread values:

Edited by Navid A1, 12 April 2016 - 05:10 PM.

[Steve Pryde]

Troutmonkey, on 12 April 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

Disagree on the cooldown. The cool down should be more, but the heat efficiency on an LRM10 should be better than 2 LRM5s

Sorry but you're paying tonnage for bigger lrm-racks, why punishing for that? That makes no sense. Smaller lrm-racks are for smaller mechs, nothing else.

[Fubl]

I always thought the idea behind the cool down was more missles equals more missles have to load into the tubes always made sense

[2fast2stompy]

Sader325, on 12 April 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

You mean people might actually have to gitgud?

Gimping a weapon system because people might have success with it against people who arent willing to use the numerous tools we have to counter them is not a reason to make a weapon outright terrible.

AMS = Anti-missile system, it is literally the tool to counter missiles. Guess what, it doesn't do its job now, let alone against better LRMs.
If you think LRM20s with LRM5 spread would be "made terrible" if AMS actually worked, I don't know what to tell you, maybe we should just stick to the clearly superior LRM20s we have now.

As for one button, 1000m range, indirect fire homing weapons and people gitting gud, toplel

Steve Pryde, on 12 April 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

Sorry but you're paying tonnage for bigger lrm-racks, why punishing for that? That makes no sense. Smaller lrm-racks are for smaller mechs, nothing else.

Sure thing, broski, just as soon as we get AC20s with AC2 cooldowns. After all, you're paying tonnage, why punish bigger mechs?

Edited by 2fast2stompy, 12 April 2016 - 05:17 PM.

[Steve Pryde]

Fubl, on 12 April 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

I always thought the idea behind the cool down was more missles equals more missles have to load into the tubes always made sense

In a game where a mech carries thousands of rockets in legs, head and arms? For me, u shouldn't be punished for taking bigger lrms-racks if u have the tonnage for it. Gameplay>logic.

@2fast2stompy

Well, that's a different story but we're talking about PGI, they're very slow for changing... things.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 12 April 2016 - 05:17 PM.

[Felbombling]

I'd like to see each some changes, too...

• Each five-point cluster of LRMs target a bone, a la the streak SRM launchers.
  
• Direct fire with a flattened missile trajectory while target in LoS, essentially making LRMs a direct-fire weapon.
  
• Arching fire pattern while being assisted by Narc or a TAG laser and no direct LoS available.
  
• Rework the weapon table so that a larger LRM rack is more desirable than multiple smaller racks.

[Trauglodyte]

So, you're solution to make LRMs better is to make the larger launchers slower and, as such, less proficient at killing the target. Seems to me that you just made them worse. Granted, the concept of having all launchers with the same spread is sound. But, by making the larger launchers pulse, you're delaying the payload and that, despite the bump in spread, makes them less viable.

The truth is that making LRMs more viable comes down to 3 things:

- missile speed (should be 200m/s; 250 was tried once and it did not end well)
- different angles of attack based upon LOS/lack of LOS (i.e., you fire flat with LOS like a Streak; you arch up without LOS)
- LRMs target bones just like Streaks; Artemis/TAG/NARC would increase the chance of hitting the CT just like Streaks
- reduce damage down to 0.8 per missile to simulate the loss of 1 missile in 5 (TT rules and what PGI stated was the end goal)

If you do this, then LRMs are more viable without being stupidly OP. People aren't inclined to boat LRM5s because you gain nothing by doing that and it makes big racks just as powerful, if not more so, which is the whole point of bigger weighted/sized weapons. The problem people have with using LRMs now is that bigger isn't better and that counter to the point of bringing big weapons. Your solution has parts which have merit but you're going about it all wrong.

[Navid A1]

Steve Pryde, on 12 April 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

In a game where a mech carries thousands of rockets in legs, head and arms? For me, u shouldn't be punished for taking bigger lrms-racks if u have the tonnage for it. Gameplay>logic.

@2fast2stompy

Well, that's a different story but we're talking about PGI, they're very slow for changing... things.

Giving all LRMs same cooldown is going a bit far.
You HAVE to pay the price... tonnage... AND cooldown.

Example: There is a reason a 120mm cannon does not fire as fast as a 20mm gun.... even in games!

The only thing that needs to be fixed with LRMs is the damn spread.