159 replies to this topic

[G SE7EN7]

LRM5's get eaten by AMS. 10/15/20s have a higher probability of making it through and with a bit of luck it will be those 5 in the tight circle. Thats the only reason I can think of using higher volley LRMs.

The alternative however is just to not use them and use a better weapon system? Just me maybe...

[Damia Savon]

Dingo Red, on 12 April 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

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 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.

FFS they are not "fire and forget" weapons. Where do people come up with this stupidity? If you want to make sure you hit the target then you have to hold the lock until the reticle flashes red. If you don't have Los then you are counting on someone else to target that enemy until your ultra slow missiles hit. The only time your lrms are going to hit indirectly after losing lock is when your target is too stupid to move.

For lrms to be "fire and forget" all you would need to do is get a lock and shoot. Then the lrms follow your target until they hit it or something else.

Please learn correct terminology and how lrms actually work.

[Damia Savon]

dario03, on 12 April 2016 - 07:11 PM, said:

Larger ballistics are punished via range and velocity. A AC20 only has 270m range and 650 velocity compared to AC5's 620m range and 1150 velocity. And of course both of the larger weapons have slower cooldowns but difference is larger in the AC family.

Yes but they do pinpoint damage and lrms do not.

[Damia Savon]

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Indirect fire - requires TAG/NARCed target, 200m/s, current spread.

Buff AMS accordingly to account for speed increase.


I get the intent and I want LRMs to be good weapons too. The problem is that indirect fire is a pretty **** mechanic and promotes terribad play; it also makes the weapons useless for direct fights. Making it a solid direct fire weapon that can do indirect fire as a backup with some support (or your own TAG/NARC) puts it in line to balance with the other weapons in the game.

No..no..fing, goddamn hell no.

Lrms have enough indirect fire problems as it is. Last thing lrms need to be is just another, stupid direct fire weapon. Requiring TAG or NARC just to fire indirectly is stupid. It means your weapon may be useless unless someone else decides to bring some toys. If I am Tagging then I have LOS so indirect won't be happening. If I am NARCING then I am also firing directly and generally have bigger problems to worry about given the minimum 180m range.

Stop trying to make lrms another direct fire weapon.

[El Bandito]

Homeskilit, on 13 April 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

With direct fire weapons you need to see your target and potentially face return fire (not necessarily from your target but also from its allies). With Indirect fire weapons you can influence a battle or skirmish without that threat. Thus making them more powerful can be risky (to the game as a whole, not the user).

Indirect fire is bad deal, if your spotter is getting hit with direct fire weapons from multiple enemies while outnumbered--since you are not there. Hence good lurmers never solely rely on spotters.

MischiefSC, on 12 April 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

LoS - flat trajectory, 600m/s. Maybe faster. Tight, spiraling flight pattern (remember the visuals on that?)

Indirect fire - requires TAG/NARCed target, 200m/s, current spread.

Buff AMS accordingly to account for speed increase.

This makes them primarily a direct fire weapon but one that 'homes in', just not as well as Streaks (current tracking response not Streak tracking response). Makes it far more like the weapon is in TT and not a 'hide in the back, tell people to get locks and lob missiles' weapon that teaches people to play badly.

People who are already good with LRMs will get a significant improvement in results (faster travel time with LoS by over a factor of 3) and it makes them very viable in any size as a complement to other direct fire weapons.

The issue with such LRM proposal that is I can simply take an AC5 instead of ALRM15 and have comparable DPS, much less DPH, less vulnerability to ECM, AMS, Raderp, and without the need to lock first. LRMs need to be fire-and-forget in addition to speed buffs to be somewhat competitive.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 April 2016 - 04:13 AM.

[MischiefSC]

El Bandito, on 13 April 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

Indirect fire is bad deal, if your spotter is getting hit with direct fire weapons from multiple enemies while outnumbered--since you are not there. Hence good lurmers never solely rely on spotters.



The issue with such LRM proposal that is I can simply take an AC5 instead of ALRM15 and have comparable DPS, much less DPH, less vulnerability to ECM, AMS, Raderp, and without the need to lock first. LRMs need to be fire-and-forget in addition to speed buffs to be somewhat competitive.

At 600m/s it's getting to target at about the same speed as an AC20. I'd say as fast as 800 and when fired without lock flies in a nice tight bundle, like SRM+A all the way out to 1K. It does lock and with retention holds target for a couple seconds even when he moves out of sight, letting it chase people around corners. Streak 6 is already a bit goofy; Streak 80 would be just silly.

At that point you can look at reducing cooldown to increase DPS, keep AMS balanced around indirect fire and as such significantly less effective against direct fire. ECM has always needed changes; I liked the ones during the PTS. You end up with something like CUACs but locking, tracking missiles (not quite streaks but tracking) with the potential for indirect fire on a TAG/NARCed mech but that's still solid and reliable performer for direct fire.

Damia Savon, on 13 April 2016 - 04:05 AM, said:

No..no..fing, goddamn hell no.

Lrms have enough indirect fire problems as it is. Last thing lrms need to be is just another, stupid direct fire weapon. Requiring TAG or NARC just to fire indirectly is stupid. It means your weapon may be useless unless someone else decides to bring some toys. If I am Tagging then I have LOS so indirect won't be happening. If I am NARCING then I am also firing directly and generally have bigger problems to worry about given the minimum 180m range.

Stop trying to make lrms another direct fire weapon.

If LRMs are not direct fire they are trash. They teach people to play poorly. I get that you want to be able to shoot people who can't shoot you back. The problem is that it's a pretty crappy mechanic and if it's not OP then it's flat out inferior. If you use LRMs you are literally learning to be bad at the game; not sharing your armor, scaving kills, spreading damage, you are using a weapon that is effective based on the ability of your opponent not yourself.

There are some good LRM players - they play with LoS generally, they get their own locks and often pair their missiles with direct fire weapons already. However nobody is ever going to say that LRMs are 'competitive', nor will they ever be if they're indirect fire. Because if they're just as effective as a direct fire weapon that requires you to expose yourself to the enemy to shoot then they're incredibly superior as you can do just as much damage just as effectively without risking being shot in return.

So LRMs either stay garbage or they become direct fire. It's that simple.

[SmoothCriminal]

As stated I don't think LRM 5s need much of a buff, however:

• Radar Dep needs a nerf - maybe extending to 0.5secs after breaking LOS (some middle ground)
  
• Reduce spread of 10/15/20 so people will start using bigger launchers - there is not a lot of point at the moment
  
• ECM slows locks by 50-100% instead of being a complete counter.
  
• Buff AMS so it is worth bringing it.
  
• [Maybe a minor velocity buff to LRMs].

[Malleus011]

LRMs need a rework. These are good suggestions. We can fiddle withthe details, like spread and cooldown, but the general idea is sound and has needed to be implemented for a long time.

[xe N on]

Homeskilit, on 13 April 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

LRMs strength comes from their ability to influence any part of the battlefield from the users current location regardless of line of sight (provided there is a target lock). With direct fire weapons you need to see your target and potentially face return fire (not necessarily from your target but also from its allies). With Indirect fire weapons you can influence a battle or skirmish without that threat. Thus making them more powerful can be risky (to the game as a whole, not the user).

Facetime is clearly not a advantage of LRMs. Because somebody need to face an enemy to get a lock. Either the LRM user himself or one of his allies.

In fact, LRMs need much more facetime than any other weapon (beside SSRMs).

El Bandito describes it already very well.

The strenght of LRMs lies in the fact of screen shake and in the fact that your allies do not block your fire. In addition, because of the range and it's indirect fire ability they can respond to an enemy contact quite fast. Latter is quite handy for slower machines if the team is splitted in multiple groups. LRMs can support both groups.

Edited by xe N on, 13 April 2016 - 05:36 AM.

[Impyrium]

Damia Savon, on 13 April 2016 - 03:47 AM, said:

FFS they are not "fire and forget" weapons. Where do people come up with this stupidity? If you want to make sure you hit the target then you have to hold the lock until the reticle flashes red. If you don't have Los then you are counting on someone else to target that enemy until your ultra slow missiles hit. The only time your lrms are going to hit indirectly after losing lock is when your target is too stupid to move.

For lrms to be "fire and forget" all you would need to do is get a lock and shoot. Then the lrms follow your target until they hit it or something else.

Please learn correct terminology and how lrms actually work.

FFS would another ten people like to explain to me that I'm wrong? I get it already! Wrong use of the term!

People damn well know what I mean though, if not the exact meaning of 'fire and forget' but just the lack of real control you have over the missiles once you fire them, or even before.

[Damia Savon]

xe N on, on 13 April 2016 - 02:00 AM, said:

While it's true that LRM mechanic could use a redesign, there is - as already mentioned early in this thread - a very easy method: reduce ammo.

Reducing ammo while buffing LRMs will lead to
- stronger LRMs that can be quite deadly
- lesser use as pure primary weapon (because of ammo limitation)
- less LRM spam or at least a very short one (because wasting ammo hurts)


LRMs would become less a skill weapon as direct dire weapons, but a tactical weapon (remember, "Thinking's Man Shooter").

Reducing ammo can be done in several ways:
- decrease the amount of missiles / ton
- limit the amount of ammo per launcher
- increase the slot size of LRM ammo

The latter way could lead to a quite balanced and even realistic system. Though not heavy, missiles consume a lot of space. Currently for 1 slot and 1 ton you get 180 (!!!) missiles. That is quite much.* If LRM-ammo would however take 2 or even 3 slots, you would have to carefully balance your amount of ammo against other equipment.

* For example
LRM: 180 ammo / ton = 180 damage
AC2: 75 ammo / ton = 150 damage total
AC20: 7 ammo / ton = 140 damage

Only SRMs have a better ammo / damage ratio:
SRMs: 100 ammo / ton = 220 damage

How about buffing lrms before reducing their ammo. Mmmkay?

[Damia Savon]

Homeskilit, on 13 April 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

I have never played it either but I got a totally different impression from posts on this forum then you did, though i could be completely wrong on the issue.

LRMs strength comes from their ability to influence any part of the battlefield from the users current location regardless of line of sight (provided there is a target lock). With direct fire weapons you need to see your target and potentially face return fire (not necessarily from your target but also from its allies). With Indirect fire weapons you can influence a battle or skirmish without that threat. Thus making them more powerful can be risky (to the game as a whole, not the user).

I do think if LRM users were forced to get their own locks (outside of narc and maybe tag?) then they could be much more powerful since there would be more risk involved in their use (outside of assassin lights).

Indirect fire is necessary for this game to be remotely complex, otherwise it is even more of an idiot fps shooter.

G SE7EN7, on 13 April 2016 - 02:54 AM, said:

LRM5's get eaten by AMS. 10/15/20s have a higher probability of making it through and with a bit of luck it will be those 5 in the tight circle. Thats the only reason I can think of using higher volley LRMs.

The alternative however is just to not use them and use a better weapon system? Just me maybe...

Thanks for saying nothing remotely useful. Go play your laser vomit spam. Kkbye

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Damia Savon, on 13 April 2016 - 06:39 AM, said:

Indirect fire is necessary for this game to be remotely complex

Indirect fire does not make this game magically complex, if anything it just allows you to better hit a team that is camping a strong defensive spot in skirmish, and that is about it. I would also prefer that role be relegated to actual artillery weapons like Arrow IV and Long Toms (PGI, pliz gif) rather than have LRMs trying to be both useful artillery and useful direct fire esque weapons (and failing at both). Just give me MW4 missiles already .

[Roadkill]

It's more complicated than that due to indirect fire. The suggestions you've made would make LRMs completely OP in indirect mode, so the entire system really needs to be overhauled if you're going to make any changes.

1. Split modes for direct fire (DF) and indirect fire (IDF).
2. Standardize spread across all launchers. Larger launchers are already balanced based on weight and heat; they do not also need to have a larger spread. That said, standardizing on the LRM-5 is probably too good, so I would invent new spreads. Something between the LRM-5 and LRM-10 for DF, and roughly the LRM-15 spread for IDF. That would still make an ALRM-20 a devastating weapon, which is as it should be.
3. Revisit cooldowns. I'm not convinced one way or the other yet, but think that it's possible that all launchers should have the same cooldown. Again, the larger launchers are already paying for their size with higher weight and heat, so they probably do not also need to have slower cooldown.
4. Require tech to spot for IDF, by which I mean a system like TAG, NARC, or a UAV. No more IDF just using friendly LOS.
5. As noted above, IDF should have a wider spread.
6. Give a lower arc for DF and a higher arc for IDF. DF should still be able to clear friendlies between firer and target, but that's about it. IDF should be an even higher arc than the current missile arc - the point is to clear obstacles, and we're now requiring tech to spot so it should be able to clear just about anything.
7. DF lock-on should be nearly instantaneous. ECM should not block DF lock-on unless the firer is within an ECM bubble, but instead should slow it down to roughly current base lock-on times.
8. IDF lock-on vs ECM should vary. ECM should block NARC and possibly UAV, but should not be able to block TAG lock-ons unless the TAG-equipped Mech is within an ECM bubble. ECM blocks the transmission of information, not the aquisition of locks.
9. DF should be fire and forget. IDF should require that the lock be maintained until impact.
10. Increase LRM speed for DF to SRM speeds. The changes to DF LRMs are meant to bring them closer to lasers and ballistics since IDF is being nerfed hard with these changes. You should be able to DF LRMs at ~500 meters and expect them to hit.
11. Decrease LRM speed for IDF slightly. 150 m/s is probably about right.
12. Allow IDF w/TAG to fire at a spot on the ground for purposes of area denial. Basically, an LRM-equipped Mech should have the ability to lock-on to a TAG target regardless of what it is.

[xe N on]

Damia Savon, on 13 April 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

How about buffing lrms before reducing their ammo. Mmmkay?

Did you even read my posts? Setting a form of limitation is the premise to buff LRMs. Otherwise you never will get any buff to LRMs.

Edited by xe N on, 13 April 2016 - 09:06 AM.

[dario03]

Damia Savon, on 13 April 2016 - 03:56 AM, said:

Yes but they do pinpoint damage and lrms do not.

That wasn't a direct lrm vs ballistic posts. It was a response to the op saying no other weapon system had so many drawbacks when going to a bigger size. I was pointing out that there are indeed quite a bit of downsides to bigger ballistics and thus bigger isn't flat out better.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

LoS direct lock = direct fire.
No LoS /indirect lock = arcing fire

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 April 2016 - 10:23 AM.

[ColdPsyker1]

Davers, on 12 April 2016 - 09:27 PM, said:

So tank weapons and naval weapons are interchangeable, but my example isn't? Ok.

huh?

Generally the .50 cal will be mounted on some vehicle chassis, or will need a tripod/bipod and setup time. Comparing that to a handheld pistol IS comparing apples to oranges
The better comparison would be a rifle v. pistol

And .50 cal v. a minigun is not comparing tank weapons to naval weapons... They have had both on ships (generally though the "regular" machine guns have been replaced with the minigun-style weapons with multiple barrels as technology has improved)

-as an aside, I think the type of machine guns equipped on old school ships were .30 cals, but dont quote me on that

KING PRoCaT, on 12 April 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

Except it is a rifled weapon that was used specifically for sniper purposes now go suck a fat one you pretentious wannabe.

A .50 cal machine gun used as a sniper rifle

I can guarentee you that said sniper was not using the .50 cal's RoF advantage over a pistol; and if he was, that is not a "sniper"

I can tell you that .50 cal is generally a good caliber for a "sniper" weapon over a lesser caliber, but generally they have custom built-rifles, not a re-purposed machine gun-props to that dude who did convert it though

[Roadkill]

MischiefSC, on 13 April 2016 - 04:33 AM, said:

So LRMs either stay garbage or they become direct fire. It's that simple.

To be fair, LRMs aren't garbage. They're just not meta-tier. I'll take LRMs over flamers, MGs, and maybe even LBXs and PPCs.

But... you really have to understand how to use them to be effective with them. One of the problems with LRMs is that they're too easy to use badly, and it isn't obvious that a.) you're using them badly, or b.) what you need to do to get better with them.

LRMs can be an extremely effective force multiplier, and they're really the only weapon in the game that functions well in that role. What Mischief's really gteting at here is that the easiest way to fix LRMs is to vastly improve their direct fire potential as the expense of the force multiplication role.

I laid out the steps that I think it would take to balance LRMs while retaining the force multiplication role. But this is PGI we're talking about, so do you really think they can implement those 12 steps without major problems? That's why Mischief's saying to just make LRMs more like direct fire. It's much simpler.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Roadkill, on 13 April 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

I'll take LRMs over flamers, MGs, and maybe even LBXs and PPCs.

The weird thing though, is that between quirks and the recent flamer buffs, all but LBX and LRMs are used in comp, even if on a very limited basis (MGs only on the SDR-5K, flamers on brawlers, PPCs on a Timby or Whale).