159 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

there are some builds i want to stick a 20 rack on, usually as part of a mixed build. to put a little range on an otherwise short range build. its totally fine to boat 5s, but stick a 20 rack on a brawler so you can be effective while your "team" decides to camp and you get penalized. i stuck a single 20 on my trebuchet and was loling how half my missiles missed a dire whale. that launcher got stripped for an artemis srm6 the very next drop.

so i totally support a tighter spread on the bigger launchers. probibly not the same spread as the 5, but definitely want to see the 20 brought down to the spread of a 15, and the spread of a 10 with artemis. i would also have a small spread bonus when in direct fire.

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.

only when you have line of sight, with indirect fire it would be better to do a high arc.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 April 2016 - 05:33 PM.

[2fast2stompy]

Also, since I'm seeing people talking about streaks, I'll just leave this here
http://mwomercs.com/...changes-to-lrm/

[Navid A1]

StaggerCheck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

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

• Each five-point cluster of LRMs target a bone, a la the streak SRM launchers.

Bad idea.
Streak LRMs that fire without LOS will be a nemesis to light mechs and useless against large targets.

StaggerCheck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

• Direct fire with a flattened missile trajectory while target in LoS, essentially making LRMs a direct-fire weapon.

That could work

StaggerCheck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

• Arching fire pattern while being assisted by Narc or a TAG laser and no direct LoS available.

Like how it is right now?

StaggerCheck, on 12 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

• Rework the weapon table so that a larger LRM rack is more desirable than multiple smaller racks.

Giving LRMs the same spread (as lrm5) will accomplish just that.

[Sader325]

Trauglodyte, on 12 April 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

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.

Except you could adjust the cooldown down to account for the increased length it takes to fire. If it takes .5 seconds longer to fire now, than reduce the cooldown by .5 seconds. Tada?

Not to mention .1 was suggested but could be adjusted based on TESTING.

[Trauglodyte]

I get what you're saying. Again, the problem isn't with having them pulse. The problem is the overall design of LRMs. WAAAAY back in the day, SRMs and LRMs used to "swarm" in patterns and it made them a lot more lethal. And, prior to the "tube reformation", if you put an LRM20 into a slot that only had 5 or 6 tubes, they launched with a pattern tightness based on the tube count and not the weapon. Both of those things got changed but PGI never changed the fact that LRM5s have always been tighter and, combined with their speed and weight, more lethal. This is why the change needs to go beyond what you're suggesting. Pulsing is just a bad idea because it patches up the problem instead of removing the problem entirely. The AC2 isn't more lethal than the AC20, the SRM2 isn't more lethal than the SRM6, and the Small Laser can't keep up with the Large Laser/PPC on a 1:1 comparison. Yet, the LRM5 is far and away better than the LRM20 because of the inherent issues with LRMs. What you're suggesting doesn't quite fix that and it certainly doesn't bring the LRM into the comp play question - to do the latter, you've got to make the weapon lethal. Pulsing with tighter spread with all of the current LRM issues doesn't get the job done.

[EurakaLi]

Trauglodyte, on 12 April 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

- 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)

there are sometime u place urself with some half -cover between ur target in short range... no good to direct fire in that case,I prefer a option to select direct fire,there some time I was in open area in very long range...direct fire will cut travel time

I was thinking give lrm 0.1 damage area splash damage each(lower the direct impact damage by 0.1or0.2),overall it was missile ,it will stop those stupid situation where someone with a RED CT keep getting rained by lrm and not dead,those enemy stay too close should take a very small damage which make some sense overall

and up the ammo per ton to 200 plz....

[Unreliable Mercenary]

Why do I have a feeling people are going to be against this without even reading your post.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

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

- spread reduce (why punishing for taking bigger lrms, wtf?)
- all lrm same cooldown

These are good.

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

- direct flying arc on line of sight (remove actual flying arc, only doable with tag/narc)

This is terrible.

[wanderer]

Troutmonkey, on 12 April 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

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

With the exception of LRM 5's, you're pretty much Artemis-enabled if you want to salvage any reasonable spread.

Navid A1, on 12 April 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

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

The velocity is abominable, considering it takes 6+ seconds to travel it's full range (depending on modules) and can be reasonably evaded outside of 400m or so. Most direct fire weaponry can get off two shots and hit before an LRM travels from start to a long range target.

But noooo, people whined about 175 velocity so they pushed it back and gave it only as a quirked buff to some chassis (because 160 + 10% = 176, the very same velocity people whined about).

[Dino Might]

Want something that'd be really cool? Make them function like real missiles. Booster propels it up to high velocity, then runs out. Remainder of flight is slowing down as missile adjusts control surfaces to steer to target. Result: The closer you are, the quicker the flight time and higher velocity of the missile -> results in better accuracy against moving target. Fire at extreme range, target can more easily outrun missile - missile can run out of kinetic energy to keep tracking target successfully.

[dario03]

Sader325, on 12 April 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

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.

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.

[El Bandito]

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.

MWO LRMs are not fire-and-forget. MW4 LRMs are fire-and-forget.

wanderer, on 12 April 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

The velocity is abominable, considering it takes 6+ seconds to travel it's full range (depending on modules) and can be reasonably evaded outside of 400m or so. Most direct fire weaponry can get off two shots and hit before an LRM travels from start to a long range target.

Yep. All direct fire weaponry can hit the enemy even before LRM boats can finish locking. And direct fire weapons do not have to contend with Raderp module, or ECM, or multiple AMS.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 April 2016 - 07:19 PM.

[xe N on]

The only reason why LRMs can be OP if buffed above a certain level is because they can be spammed.

LRMs can simply balanced after a buff by cutting the amount of ammo you can load. Decrease the number of missiles per ton of ammo or limit the amount of ammo per launcher.

Most lore builds in BT provide a lot of less ammo than the average LRM build in MWO.

Edited by xe N on, 12 April 2016 - 07:29 PM.

[Davers]

Navid A1, on 12 April 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

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.

A vehicle mounted .50 caliber machine gun fires faster than a .25 caliber pistol. Size doesn't necessarily mean slower rate of fire. Besides, all LRMs are identical except for the size of the launcher, designed for the exact same purpose.

[STEF_]

Sader325, on 12 April 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

stuff

Not enough.
Let's add also 250-300 m/s

The actual 5 second to reach a target at 800m is pretty crappy and ridicolous: long-rm are working better at medium or short range for that reason, which is very weird.

[John1352]

I came here expecting something ridiculous, but the suggestion in this thread is actually a good idea.

LRM5 spread for everything too low though, they're more precise than half of the player base. Sure the better players would still kill things faster with direct fire, but there would be a LRMegaddon in tier 5. LRM10 spread for everything would be much better.

[MischiefSC]

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.

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.

[Navid A1]

Davers, on 12 April 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

A vehicle mounted .50 caliber machine gun fires faster than a .25 caliber pistol. Size doesn't necessarily mean slower rate of fire. Besides, all LRMs are identical except for the size of the launcher, designed for the exact same purpose.

Failed logic.

show me a .50 cal sniper rifle that can fire faster than a pistol..
Compare apples to apples.
If you are talking mounted weapons... why don't you compare a minigun to your 50.cal.

Longer cool down for larger racks is perfectly fine if LRMs are faster and have the same spread.
The longer cooldown means it takes longer for the loader to fill all tubes for larger racks.... this is a very simple concept!

Edited by Navid A1, 12 April 2016 - 08:56 PM.

[Felbombling]

Navid, if all the LRM 5 packs are hitting concentrated Center Torso, don't you think that would be more over-powered than my suggested 'bone' targeting? Beyond that, if I've already said that the LRMs work on a flatter trajectory when in LoS of the target, I was just clarifying the Narc and TAG situations for the high arc.. so yes, as it is now.

[wanderer]

I honestly wouldn't mind if LRMs slapped things in 5-missile clusters, if only because it'd mean that missiles wouldn't waste themselves on terrain. An LRM 20 would...well, hit with 20 missiles.

But norrmalizing clustering and velocity boosts would be, IMHO the biggies.