159 replies to this topic

[Roadkill]

El Bandito, on 12 April 2016 - 11:55 PM, said:

If you have issue with LRMs in a Light mech, you are playing it wrong, AMS or no. Most Lights have 100+kph speed to get into cover very quickly. And one big launcher is more deadly to Lights than chain-fired LRM5s, cause the big launcher usually hits the Light's legs due to spread.

I caused some Light pilot to start raging against LRMs in a match. I was chain firing LRM-15s at him, and he was basically ignoring me as he ran around at full speed. It was a terrible waste of ammo on my part, but the match was almost over and there weren't any other targets. When my LRMs took off his legs, he started whining about stupid LRMs only target legs, rant, rant, rant.

What he failed to realize is that LRMs don't track lights at speed very well, but that the LRM-15 has sufficient spread that even though it was "missing" the target enough of the missiles were hitting his legs as he ran to eventually take them off.

It was hilarious, and his tears were very salty.

[Homeskilit]

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.

I totally agree that a good lurmer gets their own locks but they do no necessarily HAVE to. That is an advantage other weapon systems do not have.

xe N on, on 13 April 2016 - 05:29 AM, said:

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.

Have you ever been in a 1v1 fight only to get focused by the enemy teams LRMs? It is one thing if a mech moves away from the main group to assist in killing you, as he can no longer influence that area of the map, totally different when they can do that without leaving the relative safety of the main group or risk reducing the numbers of that group.

That is their strength, they can influence the map without needing to be highly mobile or having LoS.

[Pjwned]

Could also simply reduce the spread on bigger launchers without making them burst fire which has numerous disadvantages.

[KING PRoCaT]

ColdPsyker1, on 13 April 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

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




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

Yeah the guy who converted it was a legendary sniper in vietnam. I think its more than reasonable to say that its a full on conversion to a sniper rifle as his .50 was lighter and had a slower firerate than your factory .50s due to modifications along with a sniper sight Etc.

It is possible to change a weapons class entirely due to modifications. Ex the MK 14EBR/M39 EMRs are DMR/sniper rifles instead of traditional battle rifles like the M14 that it was based from due to modifications to the existing platform though there are still variants that stay true to the M14s philosophy such as the MK 14 Mod 0.

Edited by KING PRoCaT, 13 April 2016 - 11:54 AM.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Very good proposition, i agree!

[Thunder Child]

As a Catapult fan, I like the idea of reduced spread, with LoS to the target. All Classes of LRM (including the 5) should have the same spread as an Artemis 10 Launcher.
However, as much as I love the "Whoosh, whoosh, whoosh" of ripple fire, they really should fire as a single flock. Otherwise there is no point reducing the spread as you're still wasting at least two thirds of the missiles after the target breaks lock.

I don't think LRMs should lose the ability to fire indirectly, though. A dramatic increase in spread should occur however. Perhaps at a spread of 50% more than what the LRM 20 currently hits at, but for all Launchers. TAG or Narc would reduce that spread to current LRM 20 Dispersion (for all Launchers).

This would make them more effective when used as Direct Fire Support (firing over allies from 300m, for example) with Line of Sight, but allow them to be an Area Saturation weapon when used Indirectly, breaking up Deathballs clustered behind terrain.

I would remove the ability to Lock from UAVs, but also remove ECMs capability to block Locks, instead adding an extra 'x' seconds to the lock on for any targets protected by ECM. ECM would prevent Artemis, Narc, BAP, and TAG from working instead of Hard Countering LRMs. BAP, instead of basically ONLY breaking ECM, would instead give BAP equipped mechs the ability to target any enemy mech within 180m, regardless of LoS.

Just my opinions, as an LRM Close Support Pilot.

[MischiefSC]

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

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.

You and I have the same idea for a solution, yours is more complex but more comprehensive and as such isn't likely. I tried to come up with a version with simple, minimal changes. I'd rather have yours but I'd take mine.

They are garbage because that's all they can do. They're feast/famine and dependent on low target skill plus it teaches new and less experienced players to play badly - avoid enemies, use team as shields, etc.

Sure a good player can run LRMs. I do sometimes and I can farm a lot of damage if I don't mind being a selfish ******* or I can run LRM5As + lasers on. TBR for a CT-drill when I have LoS.

The problem is that an IDF only weapon is bad overall and teaches people to be bad. We have enough bads already.

[Roadkill]

MischiefSC, on 13 April 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

You and I have the same idea for a solution, yours is more complex but more comprehensive and as such isn't likely. I tried to come up with a version with simple, minimal changes. I'd rather have yours but I'd take mine.

Agreed - since PGI isn't likely to implement my suggestion, I'd be happy to get yours instead.

[JC Daxion]

Actually this is what i would do....


Increase all smaller launcher spreads to the size of the LRM 20 or at min, the 15's.. this would mean anything with smaller missile counts would be doing much more spread damage, and doing less damage to a specific body part.. Much more of a harasser missile, than something that will kill you in rapid chain fire. Why should 5's being doing more damage than a 20 in a tighter area. Decreasing 20's to 5's, you would just have instant CT cores


Decrease lock time, by a large amount, and lower firing arc, IF you have direct line of site. Peak out, grab your lock and fire.. You must maintain your own lock. A simple risk verse reward,.. In many ways, they would be similar to laser fire. You would have to keep your neck out there, verse peak and fire, and cover. That large ball of 20's or 30's coming at you in a hurry will be worth your trouble now, as they are more likely to hit and give you some nice armor removal, or open a torso, remove an arm.. ect..

Sorta like now, you peak out, you can get double Gauss to the face.. Or maybe you are getting an LRM20 instead. Again, this would make 5's less of a threat due to spreads, and larger launchers much more deadly. LRM 20 should be deadly! good pilots will still use cover and have other counters the other weapons are missing.


Lastly, I would remove direct fire, unless the target had been NARC'd, Tagged, Or UAV was up, In this case, the lock time would increase, but you could blind fire.. basically working as they are now,.. the only difference would be smaller launchers getting Increased spreads.


would this work to make the larger launchers better? I really think it would, and smaller launchers would still be harassers, just not as effective at getting kills as larger launchers, which should be obvious.

Edited by JC Daxion, 13 April 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

no they wont. Buffing lrms requires the devs to ignore the tears created when ppl realize that they could possibly be a viable weapon.

That cant happen because they go to pieces so fast in the face of those tears that mechs have a frag kill zone of 2 km.

Its been 4 plus years that theyve been yo-yoing my preferred weapon system. Ive been watching the subsequent drama unfold all the way back from the first few days of CB where they used to exit the launchers at near 90 deg vertical climb and had an attack angle near the same. Apparently, it should have been impossible to avoid back then, but I was quite able to play the game without even the crutch of the ECM jesus box (as that wasnt in the game yet either).

JC Daxion, on 13 April 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Decrease lock time, by a large amount, and lower firing arc, IF you have direct line of site. Peak out, grab your lock and fire.. You must maintain your own lock.

That actually completely removes any point to the scouting bonus that is supposedly part of role warefare lol

[JC Daxion]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

That actually completely removes any point to the scouting bonus that is supposedly part of role warefare lol

If you re-read the post.. i still say indirect, should still exists with all the goodies.. But i am curious why you think just one weapon system, should be part of those bonuses... especially one of the least used, verse adding many more ways to bring in role warefare.. It does not have to be one or the other.

But making an entire class of weapon systems second class, and only working against the un-experianced, does not make for a good game...


I'll also add, that perhaps it would make more people bring tag, and narc, and use UAV's to help their team blind fire.. verse now, anyone with a lock can do so..

Edited by JC Daxion, 13 April 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[Void Angel]

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.

AMS can't be looked at as a single system - you have to balance it against a team. Otherwise, AMS that protects one 'mech reasonably well will utterly dominate when grouped. So, you have to balance the system against a hypothetical, expected, number of available AMS - which is cool and all from an "encourage teamwork" mentality. Then again, maybe not so much when your player base doesn't see enough benefit to bringing the system and acts like a bunch of vacc-truthers. We might have to sacrifice that teamwork aspect and make AMS only affect the mounting 'mech in order to balance it better. Similarly, LRMs have to be balanced against their ability to focus fire targets without being exposed - to include the suppression effect of forcing people into cover and out of line of sight. Then there's interactions between NARC, ECM, and TAG, plus modules...

LRMs are fracking hard to balance.

All that being said, the weapon system does need some adjustment, if only to make it more intuitive when loading out a 'mech. All this mess about tube counts, for example; or the problem of effective damage v. total damage making larger launchers less attractive. The OP is absolutely right that you shouldn't be penalized for taking a larger missile rack: barring 'mech design constraints like having too little ammo, or too much heat, bigger should be better.

Edited by Void Angel, 13 April 2016 - 04:14 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

JC Daxion, on 13 April 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

If you re-read the post.. i still say indirect, should still exists with all the goodies.. But i am curious why you think just one weapon system, should be part of those bonuses... especially one of the least used, verse adding many more ways to bring in role warefare.. It does not have to be one or the other.

But making an entire class of weapon systems second class, and only working against the un-experianced, does not make for a good game...

but maybe that is just me.

Because the player base wont allow it to be useful. Im just talking from the four plus years Ive watched the devs try to make LRMs something other than garbage, and every time the players wont allow them to be a viable weapon system. As it is, its something that requires teamwork to hit, and even then you have ECM or AMS that will negate the weapon system. What other weapon has a hard counter like that? None. Not to mention that you all but have to have Artemis (which then effectively cuts your engage range to 75% or 50% as you need LOS to fire at the target and get the Artemis benefit) or a TAG or a NARC or a friend with either to try to cut through the bs of a single 1.5T piece of equipment that shouldnt even break missile lock other than NARC and Artemis.

http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

relevant:

Quote

Affected systems include Artemis IV, C3 and C3i Computer networks, and Narc Missile Beacons.

if the devs cared about lore but they dont. Even if we had angel ECM (which actually affects more than artemis as far as missiles go) then the DCMS should be the only ones with access to it since they invented it and it shouldnt be in the game at all till after the battle of Luthien.

http://www.sarna.net...Angel_ECM_Suite

Relevant:

Quote

The Angel ECM Suite is an experimental version of the Guardian ECM Suite operating on a broader spectrum and greatly advances ECM technology on the battlefield. Development of the Angel began in the Draconis Combine shortly after the Battle of Luthien, but despite assistance from ComStar, cost overruns and internal problems within both powers delayed its widespread deployment.

LRMs are the most gimped weapons in the game mainly because thats where the non LRM players WANT them to be. Its pretty much that simple. Well that and the whole "balancing by feel" thing

Void Angel, on 13 April 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

AMS can't be looked at as a single system - you have to balance it against a team. Otherwise, AMS that protects one 'mech reasonably well will utterly dominate when grouped.

same argument should be made for ECM honestly.

[Void Angel]

Eh, ECM is already weaker than tabletop. It's just that we rely on the sensor lock-on 'mechanic too much with LRMs.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Void Angel, on 13 April 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

LRMs are fracking hard to balance.

Theyre really not. Whats hard to balance are the people who dont understand that when you have a system like the lrm you cant stand out in the open with impunity, because you will get your *** handed to you. LRMs have a static, hard, counter built right into the game. Its called cover.

The fact that the devs seem to want to put the combat zones into places where cover is non-existant then want to try to balance lrms is just crazy in my book (IE domination areas which on most maps are just highlighted killzones)

Void Angel, on 13 April 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

Eh, ECM is already weaker than tabletop. It's just that we rely on the sensor lock-on 'mechanic too much with LRMs.

Without that mechanic you would never get hits with lrms. Its hard enough NOW, WITH lock on to get hits at all because ppl expect the lrms to hold their own locks and refuse to lock targets (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face imo)

And its still more powerful than TT as the TT guardian doesnt break missile lock - not even Streak. Click on the sarna link. I put it there for a reason

[Void Angel]

There are so many systems involved, some with variable effects dependent on the actions of multiple people, that LRMs are definitely hard to balance.

Nor is it a matter of balancing for people who are experiencing lowered cognition from a lack of Vitamin W (they don't Wanna.) You can't just say "well, they don't put high cover near the places people fight." That's incorrect, because people will actively avoid fields of fire if they can help it. So you have the stunningly fun options of placing multiple groups of cover within (or better yet, just outside of) LRM range, or else creating a no-mans-land kill zone which non-lrm players will avoid like the plague (think of that big, low area in Polar Highlands.) You're going to have people able to use direct-fire weapons from cover, or simply avoid the high-cover areas and fight somewhere else. Either way, it'll be very difficult to use the weapon system once players are experienced enough to grab a clue.

You've misunderstood my point about lock-ons, too. However we adjust LRMs in indirect-fire mode, I think they need to be more effective when used in "dumb-fire" mode. Being able to be more effective than we are now without a lock would help the weapon system a lot, while still retaining ECM's ability to allow players to avoid being instantly spotted when they leave cover. Of course, if PGI can get that sensor delay system up and running after CW3, that aspect of gameplay will be a whole lot better.

Edited by Void Angel, 13 April 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[wanderer]

KING PRoCaT, on 12 April 2016 - 10:42 PM, said:

Oh look another thread trying to make lights unplayable garbage machines that have to spend all their weight on tons of AMS.

If you, as a light pilot are having trouble with LRMs as it is, I feel bad for you son.

You're generally an LRM pilot's worst nightmare, being as you're highly evasive, able to close easily, and function best in that under 180m range that renders IS LRMs useless and Clantech ones rapidly delivering pillow-slaps instead of damage.

[wanderer]

Homeskilit, on 13 April 2016 - 02:10 AM, said:

LRMs will have issues as long as mechs share targeting data. Take away the free c3 and you can make LRMs much stronger with less risk of them becoming too powerful. It would also indirectly buff narc beacons and make mechs that carried them more important.

Also, isLRMs need significant buffs to compensate for being twice the tonnage of cLRMS and costing more crit space.

For the thousandth time, MWO doesn't have a C3 system, nor do LRMs interact with what we DO have in a way that has anything to do with a C3 system.

Indirect fire in MWO requires the same things it does in TT- a unit with LOS. A single infantryman can call in LRMs in TT. (in fact, they even get certain advantages vs other units!) There is no complex electronics required, just "unit sees target, calls in fire".

It even bloody well says in the TT rulebook under C3 that: "C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules and gain no benefit from a C3 network".

C3 in Battletech literally means that you can fire weapons as if you were at the best range of any unit in the network, as long as the firer is actually in range to shoot. There is nothing in MWO that does this, either for direct fire or indirect fire modes. Kindly get it straight.

[Blue Boutique]

We did have an improved lrm flight path that had a tighter path from larger groups but everyone complained about the tight grouping made it a lrmpolypse.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

"cover negates lurms"

Cover negates almost everything in this game, save for seismic sensor and UAVs.