159 replies to this topic

[Bullseye69]

We have had faster lrm and we have had lrm with all damage going torso. It didn't work then and it want work now. What everyone is forgetting that with the added speed and torso damage with the arcing that lrms do with the crappy ams results there would be no one playing anything but lrm boats or not playing at all. I have ran a tempest archer with srms and laser and just laser with ecm with ams and radar derp. I still get hit because there is always multiple mech with LRMS launchers. You can't adjust that many things at once. We also have another problem with tag you should be able to use tag and it hits terrain but the missile go behind the terrain ti hit the mech behind the terrain see it all the time.

[wanderer]

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

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.

LRMs depend on so much because of the way they're made, honestly.

They've had their ROF slowed repeatedly since beta, velocity has been hosed, large launchers have hideous levels of spread, and they're the only weapon that literally warns you it's coming (again, because apparently a slow, spread damage weapon that takes huge amounts of hits to kill solo needs to have a blaring red warning that it's coming).

Quote

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

How about we reverse some of those nerfs and see if LRMs stay garbage before turning them into another bog-standard direct-fire weapon? IDF weapons entail risks. LRMs take someone else exposing themselves (hence sacrificing their own lifespan in lieu of the missile user) and/or expending tonnage otherwise used for a better 'Mech to perform in that mode. If we actually had mortars/arty cannons, you'd be effectively guess-firing them across terrain to hit someone out of LOS, meaning severe accuracy issues.

Because once we're in "all weapons are direct fire", you've basically destroyed an entire part of the game in the process of "making LRMs good". How about we get them up to reasonably accurate at range and not auto-missing with missiles on stationary targets first before tossing the concept of indirect weapons out the door in favor of a wannabe autocannon with different graphics?

[MischiefSC]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

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:



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:



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



same argument should be made for ECM honestly.

Short answer -
No. Not true.

Longer answer -

Threads like this exist because everyone wants LRMS to be good and viable. Part of that however is making them something other than indirect fire only.

It's really simple. If I can mount a weapon that lets me shoot people who can't shoot me back and it's just as effective as weapons that risk being shot whenever I shoot someone the "shoot from safety" option is better.

The solution is to make LRMs direct fire primarily (like TT and all preceeding MW titles) and still preserve an indirect fire option with some support, giving it some support options without making it a support only option. We don't really have a "dedicated spotter who doesn't shoot) option currently.

If you want to make all to-hit rolls dice decided and as such indirect fire with an appropriate negative to-hit then you don't have the same issues. That's not this game though. So you either get indirect support weapons that are flat out inferior to direct fire or they're viable direct fire with a secondary indirect mode that works sorta like it does now.

Otherwise you completely screw game balance.

Cover blocks all weapons. That doesn't mean low heat, fast refire very fast ppcs were not broken and bad mechanics, or stock value Clan weapons or any of that. Bad mechanics are bad, that's the point of game balance. Indirect fire needs to be inferior to direct fire or it replaces it.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

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:



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:



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



same argument should be made for ECM honestly.

Short answer -
No. Not true.

Longer answer -

Threads like this exist because everyone wants LRMS to be good and viable. Part of that however is making them something other than direct fire only.

It's really simple. If I can mount a weapon that lets me shoot people who can't shoot me back and it's just as effective as weapons that risk being shot whenever I shoot someone the "shoot from safety" option is better.

The solution is to make LRMs direct fire primarily (like TT and all preceeding MW titles) and still preserve an indirect fire option with some support, giving it some support options without making it a support only option. We don't really have a "dedicated spotter who doesn't shoot) option currently.

If you want to make all to-hit rolls dice decided and as such indirect fire with an appropriate negative to-hit then you don't have the same issues. That's not this game though. So you either get indirect support weapons that are flat out inferior to direct fire or they're viable direct fire with a secondary indirect mode that works sorta like it does now.

Otherwise you completely screw game balance.

Cover blocks all weapons. That doesn't mean low heat, fast refire very fast ppcs were not broken and bad mechanics, or stock value Clan weapons or any of that. Bad mechanics are bad, that's the point of game balance. Indirect fire needs to be inferior to direct fire or it replaces it.

Edited by MischiefSC, 13 April 2016 - 05:16 PM.

[Nyte Kitsune]

lol OP, Here's how to make LRM's not terrible... Learn to use LRM's properly... there.. Problem solved.. I have NO problems in LRM mechs with the exception of getting killed early (My fault for not having Seismic Sensors) or lack of people not locking targets... once again... that's the "R" key folks. LRM's are just fine the way they are.

[Nightmare1]

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.

Bring back 180 m ECM and I might be willing to give it a shot.

Edited by Nightmare1, 13 April 2016 - 05:18 PM.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Nyte Kitsune, on 13 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

lol OP, Here's how to make LRM's not terrible... Learn to use LRM's properly... there.. Problem solved.. I have NO problems in LRM mechs with the exception of getting killed early (My fault for not having Seismic Sensors) or lack of people not locking targets... once again... that's the "R" key folks. LRM's are just fine the way they are.

what tier are you?

[Nyte Kitsune]

Boogie138, on 13 April 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

what tier are you?

Tier 3, But then I've been here since Beta, so my stats are based off the Beta scores, otherwise I'd likely be 2 (Certainly not 1, I know I'm not "That" good). I have 195 Kills in BLR-1S (All Missile kills), Most made after the LRM changes last year. So I know from experience that using LRM's properly is what makes them good or bad.

Many people fire them off without confirming if a target has cover or not and end up wasting the majority of their ammo on something they're not even hitting, having a lock, doesn't guarantee a hit. Having a dedicated narc'er can help and/or having TAG on your mech. But no, they don't need to be buffed, people just need to use them right.

[Rocket2Uranus]

I've seen players repeat fire their LRMs over and over again.
They all hit walls/mountains and they keep firing on the same target.
No crosshair turning red. They just keep shooting. No hit confirming, but they just keep shooting. Over and over again.

[Rhent]

For starters, chaining all LRM's into chains of 5 will make your LRM's even weaker against LRM's. You would no longer have the option of doing one large blast of LRM's to plow through concerted AMS fire, and yes you will run into people carrying 2-3 AMS on a mech, and yes they make the LRM 5 chain fire absolutely useless.

There are a number of ways to improve LRM's, however the number one fix to LRM's and only needed fix is to remove the warning. Problem Effin solved. It should not be there with the abundance of counter LRM tech available to mechs and it would give LRM mechs a better chance of getting at least 30 pts of damage in before they are in cover.

However, trying to turn LRM's into a 5 missile burst is the biggest nerf idea ever thought off. I already run AMS 2X or AMS 3X mechs to troll the LRM 5's, it would be even worse if you no longer had the ability to burst fire.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Boogie138, on 13 April 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

"cover negates lurms"

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

it does. Dont know why ppl would rather complain than use it.

Then again... complaining is (in this game) historically the better way to get lrms nerfed

MischiefSC, on 13 April 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

Short answer -
No. Not true.

If youve been trying to use them for the past 4 plus years like I have been, youd know your short answer is wrong

[Chimera_]

Nyte Kitsune, on 13 April 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Tier 3, But then I've been here since Beta, so my stats are based off the Beta scores, otherwise I'd likely be 2 (Certainly not 1, I know I'm not "That" good). I have 195 Kills in BLR-1S (All Missile kills), Most made after the LRM changes last year. So I know from experience that using LRM's properly is what makes them good or bad.

Many people fire them off without confirming if a target has cover or not and end up wasting the majority of their ammo on something they're not even hitting, having a lock, doesn't guarantee a hit. Having a dedicated narc'er can help and/or having TAG on your mech. But no, they don't need to be buffed, people just need to use them right.

I think it's worth pointing out that (generally speaking) the lower your tier the more likely you are to end up with enemies less competent, and thus enemies that aren't as effective at dodging lrms. I didn't notice a huge difference when I went from Tier 3 to 2 (aside from seeing a lot more forum warriors), but I can say that people I'm matched with generally know how to avoid lrm fire quite easily. Higher tiered people are more likely to have radar derp too, which is a big factor if you aren't right in the thick of it using tag and lasers too.

Just bear in mind that your experience with lrms is not necessarily representative of many other players' experience with them.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Chimera11, on 13 April 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

I didn't notice a huge difference when I went from Tier 3 to 2 (aside from seeing a lot more forum warriors)

Thats because I think youre fighting the same people. There wasnt enough population when they introduced the tiers to have tier 2 or 1 just face off against same skilled warriors. And since this really hasnt changed, Im betting the population really hasnt either

[Chimera_]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 April 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Thats because I think youre fighting the same people. There wasnt enough population when they introduced the tiers to have tier 2 or 1 just face off against same skilled warriors. And since this really hasnt changed, Im betting the population really hasnt either

Thing is, I joined during the steam launch (ignoring my previous account that I played on years ago, with horrible stats) and thus got through the tiers during what I believe was this game's peak player count. What I meant was, I didn't notice a huge difference in overall enemy competence, but DID notice many new names. I definitely play against many more recognizable names now (228 players, forum warriors, etc.) than I did at tier 3.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Chimera11, on 13 April 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

Thing is, I joined during the steam launch (ignoring my previous account that I played on years ago, with horrible stats) and thus got through the tiers during what I believe was this game's peak player count. What I meant was, I didn't notice a huge difference in overall enemy competence, but DID notice many new names. I definitely play against many more recognizable names now (228 players, forum warriors, etc.) than I did at tier 3.

Thats what Im saying though, I dont think the player population (IE the guys you face) are that different between T3 and T2 cause you fight what two tiers in any direction? The only guys you wouldnt then be fighting would be tier 5s. Since youd be fighting 1-4 if thats still the case.

As Tier 3 is the "why are there tiers again?" tier as youre fighting everyone in the game since youre then fighting 1-5. I dont think the skill difference between 4 and 5 is that great

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 13 April 2016 - 07:42 PM.

[Roadkill]

Chimera11, on 13 April 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

I didn't notice a huge difference when I went from Tier 3 to 2 (aside from seeing a lot more forum warriors)

There really isn't a difference until you hit Tier 1, and even that's fairly minimal. The only reason it's noticeable at Tier 1 is because Tier 1 cannot play Tier 4 or 5.

T2 and T3 can play anyone. T4 and T5 can play anyone but T1.

So the ramp up is pretty invisible until the T4s and T5s drop out when you hit T1.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Roadkill, on 13 April 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

There really isn't a difference until you hit Tier 1, and even that's fairly minimal. The only reason it's noticeable at Tier 1 is because Tier 1 cannot play Tier 4 or 5.

T2 and T3 can play anyone. T4 and T5 can play anyone but T1.

So the ramp up is pretty invisible until the T4s and T5s drop out when you hit T1.

damn, I saw your name and thought it was Roadbeer. I miss that guy.

On topic, I kinda think the player population thing that they blamed the fact of how the tiers worked is still there. otherwise, they could have made it a more drastic change from one tier to the next or shortened up the tier range by now.

[dario03]

Nyte Kitsune, on 13 April 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Tier 3, But then I've been here since Beta, so my stats are based off the Beta scores, otherwise I'd likely be 2 (Certainly not 1, I know I'm not "That" good). I have 195 Kills in BLR-1S (All Missile kills), Most made after the LRM changes last year. So I know from experience that using LRM's properly is what makes them good or bad.

PSR only went back so far (Jan 2015 or something around there). Also you don't really need to be "that" good to get T1. Do a bit better than average and keep playing and you will get there.

[Merit Lef]

A great side effect of the OP: With the chain fire built into the launching of the larger missiles systems it will also buff the effectiveness of AMS. Now AMS is firing at groups of 5 missiles and not at a swarm of LRMs. Giving AMS a bit more chance to fight off the rain. Its a fair trade off.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

dario03, on 13 April 2016 - 08:17 PM, said:

PSR only went back so far (Jan 2015 or something around there). Also you don't really need to be "that" good to get T1. Do a bit better than average and keep playing and you will get there.

doesnt the psr slider also average upwards? Didnt the devs say something to that effect? So that over a long enough timeline pretty much everyone will be tier 1 eventually? Or has that changed?

Merit Lef, on 13 April 2016 - 08:19 PM, said:

A great side effect of the OP: With the chain fire built into the launching of the larger missiles systems it will also buff the effectiveness of AMS. Now AMS is firing at groups of 5 missiles and not at a swarm of LRMs. Giving AMS a bit more chance to fight off the rain. Its a fair trade off.

meh, Ive never really used it. Id rather avoid the missiles with the ample cover given in nearly every map and stuff a HS or ammo in its place.

[DrxAbstract]

Dino Might, on 12 April 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

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.

That would be strictly STS or ATS types, because STA and ATA need to carry enough propellant to chase their targets down (And are much larger in contrast). I did a comparison of LRMs and AGM-114(LRMs appear largely based on it) a while back that noted LRMs have enough fuel to burn their entire 1K range before running out and still deliver a respectably sized warhead. Given the warhead is approximately 20% of an AGM-114's weight (20lbs for HEAT) with a range of 8K at 108lbs maximum weight. An LRM weighs in at 16.6lbs, can easily fit the 11lbs of propellant necessary for a full 1,000 meter burn, a 3lb warhead and 2.6lbs for guidance hardware and casing... It's definitely possible.