116 replies to this topic

[S 0 L E N Y A]

MadCat02, on 18 May 2016 - 02:29 PM, said:

because nobody wants to spare 1.5 Tons for AMS+1 ton AMMo .

ECM overnerfed ..

Of all the possible ways to counter LRMs a single AMS is probably the worst.

Dont rely on gizmos to save your butt. Learn to play.
Learn the maps, learn positioning and learn cover.

[Valar13]

Tesunie, on 18 May 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Old school, yes. It use to do that.

Recently? Not to my knowledge. I have no seen LRMs track a new target (key word is new) while in mid flight. If you lose lock and reacquire it on the same target than it will track again.

I'll give it a try again and see what happens. But I don't believe it will change while in mid flight like how it once did.

My question would be: What does the command console have to do with it? CC does nothing for LRMs. It does make enemy data (paperdoll/damage display) appear faster though...

If you are seeing LRMs change mid flight targets only with the CC, than it might be a bug with just that gear.

I see I have some testing to do soon... Testing grounds, here I come?


ECM Undernerfed.

Of course, my opinion. And only in the fact that it provides a "cloak" ability to locks, as well as makes it take longer for missiles to acquire a lock even when you can get a target lock on them. Double penalty, and far more than it should be doing.

But, of course, this is a subject that could be debated each way, with everyone tossing opinions around and stuff. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or anything, just that I (as an LRM user) am of a different opinion than you, and I do have my reasons as to why. (And no, it isn't because "I want my LRMs to be super great!" I want my LRMs to be "balanced".)

You and I both know if LRMs ever even approach viability it's going to turn into everyone bringing a LRM boat, sitting back, and spamming the fire key at a target they can't even see.

I hope that, pardon, weapon systems that do require and reward skill and reflexes will always reign supreme over those that take less or, some would say, none.

[Rogue Jedi]

Boogie138, on 19 May 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

Of all the possible ways to counter LRMs a single AMS is probably the worst.

Dont rely on gizmos to save your butt. Learn to play.
Learn the maps, learn positioning and learn cover.

Yes, a single AMS on 1 Mech will not do much against LRMs, however a single AMS each on 8 Mechs which are grouped together would make a large dent in the number of incoming LRMs, potentially destroying a 40LRM volley.

the point is that if most people used AMS then LRMs would be worthless ^{(rather than suboptimal against experienced players but good against new players as they are now)}.

Edited by Rogue Jedi, 19 May 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Count Zero 74, on 18 April 2016 - 04:57 AM, said:

Why do LRM's seem to be crazy good ?

Because they only seem to, they are crap.

They seem good in the derp tier and in quick derp play.

Not so much once you play as part of a coordinated team.

[Tesunie]

Valar13, on 19 May 2016 - 01:51 AM, said:

You and I both know if LRMs ever even approach viability it's going to turn into everyone bringing a LRM boat, sitting back, and spamming the fire key at a target they can't even see.

I hope that, pardon, weapon systems that do require and reward skill and reflexes will always reign supreme over those that take less or, some would say, none.

I can agree. I personally think that making LRMs move faster would be fine, especially if we have ECM as it currently is implemented (which seems to be locked into remaining that way).

LRMs are a strange weapon. I like them remaining in a very utility role, multipurpose. I just want them a little more "balanced" for all levels of play. However, as with all weapon balance, I know it isn't easy to do. Its easy to make them become overpower.

Of course, you know as soon as they make a change to LRMs (or any weapon system), suddenly the game will become filled with those weapons, and "because there are so many" people will think they are OP with the new changes (because they are everywhere).

And, of course, the people who would be decrying LRMs as OP most times end up seeming to be people who stand out in the open anyway, with no ECM and/or no AMS... (Obviously not all. Some people make very reasonable points in and out of favor of LRMs whenever a change is made.)


What I would REALLY want to see happen to LRMs? It would be as much a nerf as it is a buff. Take all launchers, and give them all the same spread base. (They all would have the spread of a current LRM20, as an example.) This would make it so that the LRM5 no longer is "the best LRM boat" because of it's accuracy. Instead, now an LRM20 becomes more "effective" over the LRM5.

Then, any LRM launcher with Artemis (and direct line of sight) could have the spread of a current LRM15 (or something). TAG? NARC? Make it the spread of an LRM10. (Those LRM20s should be starting to really hurt, where as now the LRM5 should be doing decently too.)

The heavier it is, the better it becomes. A single LRM20 system would become better than four LRM5s. Then, for balance, we can adjust the refire rate (basically, leave it the same, maybe alter a couple things) so LRM5s shoot faster than LRM20s (already kinda in the game).

Of course, this would be a major change to the base LRM behavior... I just find it silly that the smallest and lightest LRM system is the more efficient launcher, and the heaviest is "don't take it except for select builds and even then". Seems backwards to me...

Edited by Tesunie, 19 May 2016 - 06:06 AM.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Rogue Jedi, on 19 May 2016 - 02:22 AM, said:

Yes, a single AMS on 1 Mech will not do much against LRMs, however a single AMS each on 8 Mechs which are grouped together would make a large dent in the number of incoming LRMs, potentially destroying a 40LRM volley.

the point is that if most people used AMS then LRMs would be worthless ^{(rather than suboptimal against experienced players but good against new players as they are now)}.

True. But you know what is even better than that? 8 (12 would be ideal) pilots that all know how to counter lurms and dont need ams to do it

[JC Daxion]

I hate this term.. I swear i really hate the term... But learn to play


A good LRMer, will still do damage just like any laser guy, or ac, or PPC, of gauss... But out of all of them LRM's are one of the easiest to counter. If you are getting hit from range then you are doing something wrong.

If you are in the LRM sweet spot, 200-400m then you are basically going to get damaged like any other weapon.

If you are in a fast light, or medium brawler, your objective if possible is to close on the boat and take um down. Just watch out for backup.

All other weapons are much more dangerous with line of site, This game is all about position. If you are getting pelted by LRM's at 600+, then you have bad position it's pretty much easy as that.

Boogie138, on 19 May 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

True. But you know what is even better than that? 8 (12 would be ideal) pilots that all know how to counter lurms and dont need ams to do it

totally... But what i would love would be an LRM jammer. Something that only lasts 10-20 secs... a consumable module



that said, i would also like ECM changed to just a delay on lock, not stealth.

[Tesunie]

WildVector, on 18 May 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Hate having to correct most of you, BUT..

Fact is that CURRENTLY missiles can change directions AND targets mid flight.

You may try it, I recommend using private match over testing grounds and you'll see that those missiles will home in the newest target as long it's withing range.


PS-edited for correction, command console is for another game

Just tested (in the testing grounds, as it should not matter).

Fired LRMs blind, then acquired target lock. Missiles did not home into new target.

Fired LRMs locked into a closer target, than changed lock while at a more distant target. Tested twice to make sure, and confirmed that the lock was lose on the first target, and fully acquired on the second target while the LRMs were still in flight. They still went to the first target (without tracking, but as they are standing still...).

Tested this a third and fourth time, with targets being more equal distance. The LRMs did NOT switch targets and track the other (newer) lock while in mid flight.


Unless you can provide some other proof (a video of the current or last patch), than I'm sorry to say but no. LRMs in mid flight will not seek a new target. They use to do that (I know, I did it all the time previously), but no longer will. Not unless it's something that doesn't happen for me, but for everyone else in the game. (Somehow, I wouldn't be too surprised if this somehow was the case. I seem to suffer from strange bugs from time to time. Such as mechs that wont render in even with me looking right where they once were. Leaves me with a "Where did they go" expression, before they kill me.)

[Valar13]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

I can agree. I personally think that making LRMs move faster would be fine, especially if we have ECM as it currently is implemented (which seems to be locked into remaining that way).

LRMs are a strange weapon. I like them remaining in a very utility role, multipurpose. I just want them a little more "balanced" for all levels of play. However, as with all weapon balance, I know it isn't easy to do. Its easy to make them become overpower.

Of course, you know as soon as they make a change to LRMs (or any weapon system), suddenly the game will become filled with those weapons, and "because there are so many" people will think they are OP with the new changes (because they are everywhere).

And, of course, the people who would be decrying LRMs as OP most times end up seeming to be people who stand out in the open anyway, with no ECM and/or no AMS... (Obviously not all. Some people make very reasonable points in and out of favor of LRMs whenever a change is made.)


What I would REALLY want to see happen to LRMs? It would be as much a nerf as it is a buff. Take all launchers, and give them all the same spread base. (They all would have the spread of a current LRM20, as an example.) This would make it so that the LRM5 no longer is "the best LRM boat" because of it's accuracy. Instead, now an LRM20 becomes more "effective" over the LRM5.

Then, any LRM launcher with Artemis (and direct line of sight) could have the spread of a current LRM15 (or something). TAG? NARC? Make it the spread of an LRM10. (Those LRM20s should be starting to really hurt, where as now the LRM5 should be doing decently too.)

The heavier it is, the better it becomes. A single LRM20 system would become better than four LRM5s. Then, for balance, we can adjust the refire rate (basically, leave it the same, maybe alter a couple things) so LRM5s shoot faster than LRM20s (already kinda in the game).

Of course, this would be a major change to the base LRM behavior... I just find it silly that the smallest and lightest LRM system is the more efficient launcher, and the heaviest is "don't take it except for select builds and even then". Seems backwards to me...

LRMs definitely need to move faster. On that we can agree. Even if I didn't think it would encourage people to *MOVE* it gets annoying having the "Incoming Missile" warning on-screen for 3.4 years.

[Tesunie]

Valar13, on 19 May 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

LRMs definitely need to move faster. On that we can agree. Even if I didn't think it would encourage people to *MOVE* it gets annoying having the "Incoming Missile" warning on-screen for 3.4 years.

It sometimes does seem that long for a flight of LRMs. Guess why they are most effective at 400-200m? For a LONG range missile... they don't seem to have much for effective range...

[Valar13]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

It sometimes does seem that long for a flight of LRMs. Guess why they are most effective at 400-200m? For a LONG range missile... they don't seem to have much for effective range...

I can't count the number of times I've huddled against a wall waiting for my UI to clear.

[Tesunie]

Valar13, on 19 May 2016 - 06:55 AM, said:

I can't count the number of times I've huddled against a wall waiting for my UI to clear.

Remember when LRMs did have a speed increase (we kept some of it)? People complained that they got hit with LRMs.

I could actually hit people up to 600m! Oh my! No more was the 400m "Shoot LRMs, get hit by their small laser, have them duck behind cover, and miss anyway". Okay. Maybe Small lasers was an exaggeration. I meant to say Small PULSE laser. That seems more fitting. (Yes, I joke a little here.)


But yeah, people complain about LRMs hitting them, when most times they have upwards of 4-5 seconds to respond, if not even longer, before the LRMs hit. Not to mention you can stand out in the open and dodge most of the LRMs by simply walking perpendicular to the LRM flight path (still, but better than avoiding all the LRMs this way like before). (Not to mention LRMs are at least polite enough to let you know you're about to get hit. "Pardon me. I'm going to hit you. Would you mind standing still so I can do so easier?" Unlike those rude direct fire weapons. *BAM* "Oh, I'm sorry. Where you standing there? NOT ANYMORE! MAHAHAHA!" )

I don't mind LRMs being a little weaker to direct fire weapons because of their utility nature, but at the same given time...
One should not be able to "out maneuver them" by simply walking out in the open perpendicular to their flight path either. No special dance should make LRMs less effective if you are out in the open, with a line of sight target lock...

[Rogue Jedi]

Valar13, on 19 May 2016 - 06:52 AM, said:

LRMs definitely need to move faster. On that we can agree. Even if I didn't think it would encourage people to *MOVE* it gets annoying having the "Incoming Missile" warning on-screen for 3.4 years.

last time LRMs were made faster naturally as you would expect people who had not used them for years decided to try them again to see if they were viable, but within a week the speed increase got dialled back thanks to all the complaints, 1 week is not anywhere near long enough to test something like that.

what I would like to see is the velocity of LRMs be increased by 5-10% each patch, until people start complaining, but for the increase not to be announced.

The issue with announcing something like that is that the announcement changes player behaviour, people will see the announcement and try the weapon to see if the increase was significant enough to make the weapon more or less viable than other weapons, if the change is to just one weapon system then the that weapon is far more likely to be used for the next few weeks, so people are far more likely to die to it and complain that it must be overpowered because they are dying to it more than the so called "good" weapons but only because 75% of players are testing it, thus that improved weapon must be overpowered and players demand "nerf it now".

[Koniving]

I saw this old trinket while helping someone else and couldn't resist.

[no one]

The problems with LRMs are myriad.
1 - Damage spread. My shield arm laughs at your missiles.
2 - Perfectly imprecise. You can't direct LRMs and therefore can't take real advantage of an opened torso section.
3 - High tonnage and critical use per DPS, especially after ammo, Artemis, BAP and TAG.
4 - Slow (There's now a 100 ton assault 'Mech capable of out-peaking LRMs at 400m)
5 - Horrible damage scaling against AMS. Makes boating 40+ LRMs the only way to make them dangerous.
6 - Extremely quirk dependent. No IS 'Mech without Quirks or Clan 'Mech without many missile hard-points and tons to spare for ammo can use them well.
7 - Require a lock-on time module to be even remotely effective.
8 - ECM
9 - Requires face time to lock. Direct fire is utterly useless against even semi-awake targets.
10 - Actually WARNS the enemy before they take damage.
11 - Pathing for LRMs is still a joke. They will gleefully slam into the dirt 10m in front of you if you're trying to shoot over a slight rise to a lower target.
12 - Only weapon with a hard minimum range.

LRMs aren't a weapon, they're a punishment system. Like Flamers punish you for being completely alone, LRMs punish you for being a slow 'mech, standing out alone in an open field with no anti-LRM measures. Ergo, if you take a slow 'Mech to a low tier PUG you will probably think LRMs are OP.

Edited by no one, 19 May 2016 - 12:23 PM.

[Tesunie]

no one, on 19 May 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

12 - Only weapon with a hard minimum range.

PPCs also have a hard Minimum range (now).


Also, you point out the flaws, but failed to point out a single strength that LRMs have, and they do have several strengths. To name a few:
- Natural teamwork weapon. You got a lock, I can help no matter where I am (almost).
- Terror weapon. No one likes the "incoming missile" warning. Even if it's only an LRM5...
- Indirect fire. It is the ONLY weapon in the game to be able to shoot indirectly.
- Blanket bombardment. Sometimes, an opponent will twist a damaged section away from you. LRMs can sometimes get lucky enough to still hit that section, and kill it.
- Anti-runaway. I can't name the number of times people have fled away from me, ran back into my LRM weapon range, only to die anyway via indirect fire as they tried to flee me. (Works fairly well in mixed builds. They don't want to mess with your close range weapons anymore, so they try to flee and land back into your LRM ranges.)

AKA: All the points that make the weapon a "utility" weapon.

[Tesunie]

Valar13, on 19 May 2016 - 01:51 AM, said:

You and I both know if LRMs ever even approach viability it's going to turn into everyone bringing a LRM boat, sitting back, and spamming the fire key at a target they can't even see.

I hope that, pardon, weapon systems that do require and reward skill and reflexes will always reign supreme over those that take less or, some would say, none.

While at work, I thought of something I wished to say in remarks to this.

Wouldn't you also wish for LRMs to be something that would be balanced for all levels of play?

What I mean is, wouldn't you like it if someone went "I have some LRMs" and actually think "oh good, those can come in handy"? But, in reverse, have them so balanced that if you hear everyone (or too many on your team) say "We have lots of LRM boats!" you start to get worried going "Well, that's a weakness. This match is going to be difficult"?

It would be great if they were considered as viable as the Gauss, but at the same time so valnerable/balanced that an entire team of them (AKA: whatever is deemed "too many") would start to be a problem instead of "force multiplier"?


I do think we each agree, faster missile speed would do wonders to help make this more possible.

And, as a last comment for the moment, LRMs do require skill. Just different skill sets to direct fire weapons. Though, I do get what you mean.

[no one]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

PPCs also have a hard Minimum range (now).

Ouch. Poor IS PPCs

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

Also, you point out the flaws, but failed to point out a single strength that LRMs have, and they do have several strengths. To name a few:
- Natural teamwork weapon. You got a lock, I can help no matter where I am (almost).

Pointing out flaws is what I was doing, yes. Almost any cover that a person's using against your spotter is going to be effective against your LRMs and being up close on cover's going to keep you from using LRMs. You can flank, but since LRMs paint a big arrow to you it's unwise to flank in an LRM boat because you will be briefly alone, then dead. Few maps accommodate LRM support at all. Also, a spotter has to NARC or keep a lock for the duration of the missiles flight. That's hard to do unless you're an ECM light.

"- Terror weapon. No one likes the "incoming missile" warning. Even if it's only an LRM5..."

I do like it! Sometimes I intentionally get NARCed and then hide behind cover giggling.

People don't like it when they get a flashing damage indicator from a lance of laser-fire either, they just can't do as much about it.

"- Blanket bombardment. Sometimes, an opponent will twist a damaged section away from you. LRMs can sometimes get lucky enough to still hit that section, and kill it."

You can get a lucky hit with anything, or you can wait for them to twist back and pump their damaged section full of concentrated fire.

"- Anti-runaway. I can't name the number of times people have fled away from me, ran back into my LRM weapon range, only to die anyway via indirect fire as they tried to flee me. (Works fairly well in mixed builds. They don't want to mess with your close range weapons anymore, so they try to flee and land back into your LRM ranges.)"

Every time I see that happen I have to sigh REALLY LOUDLY. It's almost always a symptom of poor coordination on a push and/or someone who doesn't understand LRMs. Either way, if you are doing a mixed range build there's no way in which you're better off having LRMs over say, an erLL. The erLL can hit a fleeing 'Mech, concentrate the damage better, and be used up close in a pinch alpha.

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

- Indirect fire. It is the ONLY weapon in the game to be able to shoot indirectly.

That's true. The major failing of LRM balance is that because one spotter CAN draw IDF from multiple sources they've been squashed into terrible individual weapons to balance massed fire. The caveat catch22 is that because LRMs are such terrible individual weapons they're rarely seen as backup weapons on multiple friendlies in a match. Those friendlies would much rather have that weight for almost anything else.

tldr; spotting mechanics are bad and that's why LRMs are balanced around being bad.

Edited by no one, 19 May 2016 - 05:51 PM.

[Tesunie]

If I wanted to, I could look at the flaws of any weapon in the game, and try to sell any weapon off as "bad" by doing just that. When one looks at a weapon system, one must consider every aspect of it.

However, I'm getting the sense that no matter what I say to you, you're going to ignore it and say "well, in this specific situation it...". So. There is no farther reason I see to even bother.

PS: LPLs have long beam duration, high heat, and short range. IS AC10s must be be superior due to low heat and pin point damage at longer effective ranges. (See? I can do it too.)

[no one]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

If I wanted to, I could look at the flaws of any weapon in the game, and try to sell any weapon off as "bad" by doing just that. When one looks at a weapon system, one must consider every aspect of it.

However, I'm getting the sense that no matter what I say to you, you're going to ignore it and say "well, in this specific situation it...". So. There is no farther reason I see to even bother.

PS: LPLs have long beam duration, high heat, and short range. IS AC10s must be be superior due to low heat and pin point damage at longer effective ranges. (See? I can do it too.)

Don't be insulting, it doesn't forward your argument any. The reason I'm talking situations is because LRMs are more situationally dependent than most other weapons.

I also didn't say LRMs are bad, exactly. I said they have a lot of flaws and are balanced around not being overpowered in massed indirect fire situations, which means they need to be terrible individual weapons. If you took a way the potential for 1-to-11 spotter to IDF ratio you could balance LRMs on their own terms without the over-quirked specialist chassis.

PS: Actually yes, AC10s are pretty good. The trouble is you have very few platforms that have the weight and critical space to cram in as many as you can with LPL. Even chassis that allow it, such as the Ilya Muromets, don't have good hardpoint positions and tend to have convergence or weapon placement issues. The LPL is hot, but it/s short beam duration makes it effectively pinpoint while being much lighter, more compact and easier to mass into one section of a chassis. The LPL also has the advantages of being hit-scan and non ammo dependent with no ballistic falloff*. Of course if you're talking range the AC/10's got an advantage of 85m optimal, but there's no hard cut-off for damage so the LPL is still doing roughly 9 damage at the ac/10s optimal and is still hit-scan. The AC10's low heat makes it good as a sustained fire weapon when paired with lasers, although it's generally less favored than cooler, lighter and longer ranged AC/5s and uAC/5s.

*Ballistic falloff isn't entirely bad. You can use it to drop shots over intervening terrain, although rarely.

Edited by no one, 19 May 2016 - 09:23 PM.