116 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

no one, on 19 May 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

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.

Sorry. My bad. I kinda snapped.

It's just getting a little tiresome to have the same arguments, and I often seem to deal with people who are "less than reasonable" and wont listen to what I say at all "because they know better".

LRMs are a bit situational, but I often find those situations are always coming in just about every match. Sometimes, I don't care if I damage an enemy, as long as I can just keep them in cover. Often times, I have a lock, but with only direct fire weapons, I can't help my allies for that little bit longer (if at all). I also tend to catch people as they run behind short cover, where my direct fire weapons can no longer hit.

It really does depend upon what you are looking to get out of your mech, and how you use your weapons. I agree that LRMs are not "the best", but I'll also agree that "they aren't the worst". Like everything else, they have their pros and cons. (I also find them really enjoyable, within a mixed build. I like to support and I work well with utility most times.)


What I would believe could mitigate the "oh, 11 of them could LRM me to death with just one spotter!" issue might be to just adjust spread when shooting indirectly. Then again, I believe spread on LRMs should be treated drastically different, as I've already mentioned in this thread. Basically, shooting indirectly without TAG or NARC would be some serious spread, even for an LRM5 (especially for an LRM5). This would make the "11 man indirect" still hurt, but a lot of it would probably hit dirt rather than mech, even with TAG or NARC. Not unless they all had direct line of sight and Artemis. (Basically, indirect LRM fire could have a spread equivalent to a current LRM20, if not even larger no matter what size the launcher. With TAG or NARC, it would basically negate the "penalty" if indirect fire, but that would still leave it wide spread like an LRM15.) (Numbers are mostly just for reference.)

There are plenty of ways LRMs could be adjusted to remain balanced, yet competitive. I just don't feel PGI has looked into all the possibilities. Probably afraid (and rightfully so) that people will complain about X LRMagadon, or that LRMs have "become useless (again/still)".

Due to their utility nature, LRMs will never be an easy weapon to balance. As much as we can toss theories, we wont know if any of it works unless it was tried in several (hundred) live matches...

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

LRMs are a bit situational,

Just to build on this-

A lousy lrm pilot will sit and wait for the correct "situation"
(IE 2 button hero begging for locks and UAVs while they sit in the back).

A good pilot will create the situation they need and will exploit it to the fullest.

Further:
All weapons are situational. How well does a SRM brawler do at 500m? How good is your pulse laser meta at 800m?
How well does your goose rifle sniper buile do on frozen city?

[Tesunie]

Boogie138, on 19 May 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

Further:
All weapons are situational. How well does a SRM brawler do at 500m? How good is your pulse laser meta at 800m?
How well does your goose rifle sniper buile do on frozen city?

Good points.

And here is where I will make an argument for direct fire weapons (no matter the range), they do tend to have "more situations" that they are viable, but that depends once more upon "creating" those situations as well. (Hide behind a rock all match? Those direct fire weapons probably will be useless. Beg for locks from your team so you can cause damage? Not as helpful as the pilot thinks they are being...)

What weapons you tend to use does fall upon preference. There is nothing wrong with liking and preferring one weapon type/system over another. Of course, I always recommend players to try every weapon. There is no harm in doing so, and all it will do is improve your knowledge of the game. (In addition to that comment, I'll say I find it far easier to dodge LRMs than other people seem to, as I know how they work more intimately than others because I've used them before. Doesn't mean I always dodge them, but I know when I can, and when "oh phooey" happens.)

[no one]

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

Sorry. My bad. I kinda snapped.

All-good.

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

What I would believe could mitigate the "oh, 11 of them could LRM me to death with just one spotter!" issue might be to just adjust spread when shooting indirectly.

Huh. I thought LRMs were already less focused with IDF, or just lost the benefit of Artemis. Spread is one of the better approaches to balancing LRMs. Increasing volley spread based on the number of total inbound IDF missiles per spotter could work, but people would probably be upset at LRMs dumping even more ammo into the dirt. Alternatively you could just first-serve IDF locks.

Tesunie, on 19 May 2016 - 10:31 PM, said:

With TAG or NARC, it would basically negate the "penalty" if indirect fire, but that would still leave it wide spread like an LRM15.) (Numbers are mostly just for reference.)

TAG and NARC could stand to be a lot more effective in general given how slow and vulnerable to AMS NARC is. Having them allow for more IDF locks or more focused or precise IDF could be interesting.

I can't justify LRMs on most of my 'mech builds. Partly that's because I almost always build around long range ballistics or energy weapons. Reserving missile slots for SRMs lets me have a response at close range without adding to my heat at long range. They're also very heavy weapons that burn far, far too much ammo to keep as secondaries, especially since both game 'Mechanics and quirks (unfortunately) reward boating load-outs almost exclusively. (I have a joke-locust that runs 4 LRM5s or 4SRM4s alternately and the 'Mech has to shed every ton of armor to fit that.)

If LRMs accelerated along their flight path to level the time to target across ranges I could see using them seriously. If quirks were hardpoint specific I could see mixed load-outs thriving more.

[Tesunie]

no one, on 20 May 2016 - 02:35 AM, said:

All-good.

Hey. I'm willing to eat my words. I may have been saying the right things, but my tone was way off. That whole second paragraph... Yeah. So, sincerely sorry on that.

no one, on 20 May 2016 - 02:35 AM, said:

Huh. I thought LRMs were already less focused with IDF, or just lost the benefit of Artemis. Spread is one of the better approaches to balancing LRMs. Increasing volley spread based on the number of total inbound IDF missiles per spotter could work, but people would probably be upset at LRMs dumping even more ammo into the dirt. Alternatively you could just first-serve IDF locks.

They aren't less focused, but the benefits of Artemis (besides the faster missile locks) is negated if you don't have line of sight.

First-serve locks? I might need more explanation.

Though, I think a simple "indirect fire" spread penalty would be more than sufficiant. I don't think we'd need any more complicated rules than that. And, actually, indirect fire hitting less often is straight from lore, but in lore I believe it's for each piece of intervening terrain that makes it more difficult, I don't feel this is needed in MW:O. The spotter in TT also can't shoot when they are spotting (unless they hit with a TAG, if I'm correct), but adding a rule like that I think would not be good for MW:O and would feel arbitrary.

no one, on 20 May 2016 - 02:35 AM, said:

TAG and NARC could stand to be a lot more effective in general given how slow and vulnerable to AMS NARC is. Having them allow for more IDF locks or more focused or precise IDF could be interesting.

I can't justify LRMs on most of my 'mech builds. Partly that's because I almost always build around long range ballistics or energy weapons. Reserving missile slots for SRMs lets me have a response at close range without adding to my heat at long range. They're also very heavy weapons that burn far, far too much ammo to keep as secondaries, especially since both game 'Mechanics and quirks (unfortunately) reward boating load-outs almost exclusively. (I have a joke-locust that runs 4 LRM5s or 4SRM4s alternately and the 'Mech has to shed every ton of armor to fit that.)

If LRMs accelerated along their flight path to level the time to target across ranges I could see using them seriously. If quirks were hardpoint specific I could see mixed load-outs thriving more.

I think TAG and NARC should be more for focus and precise indirect fire.

Of course, all my concepts kinda would need LRMs to move faster. They are currently the slowest moving weapon in the game. I think just a general speed increase would be good, if we can keep the doomsayers appeased long enough to actually "test" it out some...

I actually have to agree with you. If we could select which weapons go into which exact hardpoints, I think quirks specific hardpoints would be better than a flat quirk. However, I will comment that I often don't look at quirks when I create a mech. I'll glance at it, but I don't want to feel shoehorned into a specific build because of the quirks.

It sounds, except for the mix build, like you wouldn't mind my Super Locust. I know it looks trolly in build... but it's worked surprisingly well for everyone who's used it before. I've actually almost soloed an Atlas with it (till an ally got involved and got us both killed. It's a long story...). No one expects a slow light. It's like they suddenly can't hit it!


Edit: Some little typos.

Edited by Tesunie, 20 May 2016 - 07:54 AM.

[no one]

Tesunie, on 20 May 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

First-serve locks? I might need more explanation.

Not allowing more than one person to acquire an indirect fire lock from any given spotter without the benefit of NARC or TAG. Tabletop rules the spotter-IDF ratio was always 1:1. If you did that you could boost the hell out of LRMs without fear of them becoming an overwhelming focus-fire advantage.

Tesunie, on 20 May 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

And, actually, indirect fire hitting less often is straight from lore, but in lore I believe it's for each piece of intervening terrain that makes it more difficult, I don't feel this is needed in MW:O. The spotter in TT also can't shoot when they are spotting (unless they hit with a TAG, if I'm correct), but adding a rule like that I think would not be good for MW:O and would feel arbitrary.

I don't recall rules involving intervening terrain at all for IDF, outside line of sight modifiers on spotting. It was something like a +1 for using a spotter, +0 for using Semi-Guided LRMs with a TAG and then you added movement modifiers for the spotter, IDF platform and target. I thought spotters could fire, but at a penalty? I think IDF with LRMs, Mech-mortars and the like used the IDF platform's range accuracy modifiers unless both are C3 equipped. Spotting in MWO isn't far off the mark really, it's just the concentration of fire that breaks things.

Tesunie, on 20 May 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

I will comment that I often don't look at quirks when I create a mech. I'll glance at it, but I don't want to feel shoehorned into a specific build because of the quirks.

It sounds, except for the mix build, like you wouldn't mind my Super Locust.

Sure, but it's there. I'll run sub-optimal mix load-outs on my Thuds or Zeus all day, but if I know I could cram in 3LPL and do significantly better.

If I'm doing SRM4/LRM5s on a locust I do this -
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e2f57819a5e2382

You lose 4 or 5 missiles per volley per enemy AMS so it ends up being much more efficient. It's. . . surprisingly not hard to empty your ammo into an OpFor before getting glassed by laser-wash.

[Tesunie]

(Not quoting, not to be rude, but because... well... wall o' text (that is neatly formatted).)

I'm not 100% familiar with TT rules. Last I saw (and I very much could be wrong), the spotter couldn't shoot or something, but any number of LRM mechs could use the spotting information. I believe it was considered being radioed in?

As far as game play mechanic for one spot per indirect weapon lock on... how could it be implemented? I could see a lot of confusion and/or frustration with that as a mechanic. Who would get the lock? What happens if two players get a lock at the same time? Can you imagine how many people would end up dumb firing their LRMs into the ground "because I should have had a lock"? (AKA: They started to get a lock, another teammate beat them to it, and disabled their lock half way through.)

I just don't see it happening. At least not as I perceive it at least...


And don't knock those SRM2s out on the Super Locust. often times I'll run out of ammo, and kill targets with those tight spread SRMs. Plus... I have armor. (This is when we say "to each their own"?)

[no one]

Total Warfare page 111 has spotters being able to fire at a +1 penalty to both their fire and all IDF.

It also says a spotter can spot for multiple attackers, so you're correct there. I still think that's a balanced issue, but ~opinion~.

As far as people losing locks to team mates well... that's already part of the IDF experience. If you're relying on a spotter at any kind to do your targeting for you at range you're going to be sending missiles into terrain, even if you fired after achieving a solid lock. I'd rather have a chance at getting a solid lock and having lethally fast missiles than having a certainty of getting a lock with current LRMs. Locks could go to whoever gets a solid lock first. If I don't like sharing then I can get my own locks, or someone could NARC, TAG or throw up a UAV.

Balancing by spread's an acceptable solution too, but that's going to send more missiles into the dirt long-term so LRMs would need an ammo boost to eek out a reasonable damage per ton.

Another argument I've seen is that IDF could be launched more obliquely, and so have a greater time to target and less effective range. The problem with that one is you'd end up nullifying the effectiveness of most cover.

LRMs accelerating linearly over their flight path from say, 100m/s to 650m/s at optimal would be nice because they'd spend less total time in the air at long ranges without being too fast to evade at close or mid ranges.

And yeah, we'll probably never see serious mechanic changes to weapons so it's pretty moot.

The locusts are obviously very different play-styles. I run the fast, fragile focused-role glass cannon missile flanker or walking claymore mine. You run something that can't dictate range as well but is tougher with a weaker, but more responsive load-out. Both builds are pretty badly ammo limited. So yeah, to each their own.

[Tesunie]

(Removed parts that I feel don't need discussing. AKA: I have nothing to say about it, agree, or don't agree but wont argue it either.)

no one, on 20 May 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

As far as people losing locks to team mates well... that's already part of the IDF experience. If you're relying on a spotter at any kind to do your targeting for you at range you're going to be sending missiles into terrain, even if you fired after achieving a solid lock. I'd rather have a chance at getting a solid lock and having lethally fast missiles than having a certainty of getting a lock with current LRMs. Locks could go to whoever gets a solid lock first. If I don't like sharing then I can get my own locks, or someone could NARC, TAG or throw up a UAV.

Balancing by spread's an acceptable solution too, but that's going to send more missiles into the dirt long-term so LRMs would need an ammo boost to eek out a reasonable damage per ton.

...
LRMs accelerating linearly over their flight path from say, 100m/s to 650m/s at optimal would be nice because they'd spend less total time in the air at long ranges without being too fast to evade at close or mid ranges.

And yeah, we'll probably never see serious mechanic changes to weapons so it's pretty moot.

The "losing lock" part is not because the spotter lost the lock, but because another ally got a lock on before me. In this case, I've often "memorized" how long it takes to lock, so I literally can start shooting LRMs the moment I get a hard lock. With this system, I'd probably get frustrated by a lock I lost to someone else at the very last moment. It also produces "infighting" in the team.

If IDF is balanced by spread (or rather the whole spread system was changed), than only indirect fire would "lose damage", especially if not supported by gear such as TAG or NARC. Direct fire though would/should actually have more ammo land on target, especially if it is with Artemis and larger launchers (in my concept). Thus, I don't believe that ammo would need to be touched. Either boat ammo for indirect, or bring same/less ammo for more direct fire situations. It would still provide either tactic, but would lessen indirect, and enforce direct fire. Basically, you'd be rewarded more for more skillful use of LRMs, compared to "spray and pray". We do want to encourage skillful play, correct?

My opinion on missile velocity changes is that, like an AC20 slug (combined with the LRMs minimum range), the closer you are to the target, the more LRMs should be likely to hit. A plain speed buff overall I believe would be fine, instead of a linear acceleration over distance/time. At 400 or less meters, I believe if I have a lock (and you don't get into cover and stuff), I should be able to hit you. I should also have a reasonable chance at that range to be able to blind fire the missiles and hit, instead of you needing to be stationary, or me extremely lucky/skillful on predicting where you are going to be.

You are probably very correct. We probably are very unlikely to see any major LRM mechanic change any time soon, if ever. Doesn't hurt to throw out some theory anyway (as long as we remain civil and not, you know, snapping at people). Maybe PGI will hear some of it and even use it...

[no one]

Fair.

Tesunie, on 20 May 2016 - 07:36 PM, said:

I should also have a reasonable chance at that range to be able to blind fire the missiles and hit, instead of you needing to be stationary, or me extremely lucky/skillful on predicting where you are going to be.

I'd love the ability to direct missiles to a target by simply holding the firing reticule over an enemy without the need for a hard lock. Just have the missiles check what I'm aiming at each time they make a course adjustment. I could see that added as a function of Artemis.

[Rogue Jedi]

no one, on 20 May 2016 - 11:45 PM, said:

I'd love the ability to direct missiles to a target by simply holding the firing reticule over an enemy without the need for a hard lock. Just have the missiles check what I'm aiming at each time they make a course adjustment. I could see that added as a function of Artemis.

I like the idea but that seems more like something TAG should be used for, if you fire without a lock but have your own TAG the missiles follow it ^{(would be way to complicated if it followed any TAG)}

[no one]

Rogue Jedi, on 21 May 2016 - 01:33 AM, said:

I like the idea but that seems more like something TAG should be used for.

Well Artemis essentially is an infrared TAG built into each launcher.

Spoiler

The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components.^[1] In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.

TAG with Semi-Guided LRMs is basically the IDF version of Artemis. You could have missiles launched on a TAG spotted unit continue to follow the TAG even if the IDF platform loses lock, but realistically your IDF platform's only going to lose lock if the spotter stops spotting.

The reason I proposed Artemis instead of TAG is twofold.
1 - Artemis is more of an investment in tonnage, and is a launcher integrated technology FOR direct fire.
2 - TAG only removes the indirect fire penalty.

Also I don't think there are any Clan LRMs that are able to benefit from TAG spotting.

[Insects]

Someone really has to derp out into the open to get missiled to death.

Hug hills and buildings.
Carry AMS in beginner tier quickmatch where the high LRM usage justifies the couple of tons.
Back into cover when you hear the missile warning (always have cover planned).
Look in the air for blue dots and shoot them down they are UAV spys allowing you to be targeted (not if they have a blue triangle, they are your teams), you have it targeted when crosshairs shows a distance instead of infinity.
LRM cant shoot you unless enemy has an eyeball on you, keep an eye out for some ECM light hiding and scare them off.

[David Sumner]

Quote

They don't seem so good once you play as part of a co-ordinated team

hhahahhhahahahahah really? on the rare occasion I can do that, they are AWESOME.

[Helsbane]

A while back I was speccing one of those lone survivor lurm boats at the end of a FW match. As a trio of friendly mechs tried valiantly to hold the choke point at center gate on Sulfur, he was poking his head up and firing over the saddle notch in the center channel. He'd eventually get a solid lock, after waiting for a break in the enemy ECM cover at the gate, fire, and scurry backwards into cover.

He hit about three times, because the target had shut down and was unable to get around the corner of the gate.

He wasted 65 tons bringing the most easily countered weapon in the game against Clan mechs. Each time he popped up to get a lock, he had ample time to shoot two to three times with direct fire weapons and do real effective damage, but he didn't have any. He had lurms.

Don't be the useless guy on your team. Don't bring lurms.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Helsbane, on 29 May 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

Don't be the useless guy on your team. Don't bring lurms.

Also, dont be salty over pugs. Not a good look.

[David Sumner]

Here's a thing. For IDF, why the hell can't I pull up the battle grid and designate an IDF target for myself, or my lance?