22 replies to this topic

[Gryphorim]

Discussing LRM use in faction play, my lancemates and I brainstormed some improved mechanics that might make LRMs a more valuable weapon platform to take, particularly the bigger launchers.

The idea is that, on locking onto a target, each missile is locked onto a bone of the target mech, like streaks do. The difference here is the addition of "false bones" that mean a missile would miss, and a concept I call "crowding", meaning, only a certain number of individual missiles can occupy a given bone. So if you have multiple small launchers, or a few big launchers, some of the missiles are going to miss either way.
The second part of this idea, is that crowding limits are relaxed and false bones disappear if a lock is held, locking to a second "resolution", and then to a third resolution where limb bones are dropped and crowding is removed entirely.
The speed that each step of resolution improves would be based on the number of LRM launchers fitted, the longer it takes.
The visual asset on the HUD for these improved resolutions would be the lock on reticule shrinking for each stage of the lock.

Firing your LRMs disrupts this gained resolution, snapping the resolution back to a regular lock, with lock degradation strength based on number and speed of missile fire. This would mean a boat full of LRM5s can fire repeated barrages, but lose resolution, allowing consistent suppression, but a LRM20 build could hold resolution slightly longer, but at reduced fire rate.

Edited by Gryphorim, 14 June 2016 - 06:35 PM.

[MechWarrior319348]

I would like it if lrms needed direct line of sight to be locked on.

They could still be fired without direct line of sight, but the spotting teammate would require tag, narc, or a UAV in order to spot for lrms.

[Gryphorim]

Delta 62, on 14 June 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I would like it if lrms needed direct line of sight to be locked on.

They could still be fired without direct line of sight, but the spotting teammate would require tag, narc, or a UAV in order to spot for lrms.

Split the difference - LRM resolution cannot be improved above base level except by direct LoS, TAG/NARC.
Artemis allows direct LoS locks to start at resolution 2 (no false bones)

[El Bandito]

You are asking too much from PGI. But lets keep on hoping.

[Gryphorim]

El Bandito, on 14 June 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

You are asking too much from PGI. But lets keep on hoping.

Just asking for a little more than SSRMs do now, with a tiered lock-on feature.
Balanced so that diminishing returns on mega-boating, and big LRMs have a different, but equally useful role to clustered small LRMs. Heck, even single LRMs would be useful, as lock would snap to resolution 3 super quick.

[InspectorG]

Many decent solutions to LRMs have been offered. All have been ignored.

The main problem is boating. I would vouche for governing that at the Weapon grouping system but...whatevs.

The other problem is boating via combined LRMs on a team.

I would prefer LRMs had an artillery mechanic where they could be fired from the 'B' map. While on that map, LRM boat is immobile and helpless but can concievably lay down area-denial fire. Which i think would help MWO.

Pet solution projects are fun, but PGI seldom is interested.

[crashlogic]

I would say that boating, as I understand it, just means carrying mostly or all lrm launchers with few or no other weapons. It makes no difference whether these are lrm 5's or lrm20's. In point of fact some Mechs were intended to "Boat" since their primary mission was fire support. The MadDog and Archer are very good examples of this, and therefore they will inherently have more LRM hardpoints.
The preference for LRM5's in multiples is mostly a function of recycle time and spread. LRM5's recycle faster so mathematically they can actually put more missiles on target than larger launchers. The spread factor contributes more to components destroyed and kills (because so many groups are coming in so fast) more than it does to overall damage. More missiles ultimately do more damage. (3xlrm 15's do more damage on average than 6 x lrm 5's. 4 by LRM 20s is obscene when they hit together, its just gonne be forever before they can fire again.

My preference for LRM5's is mostly driven by ammunition. With LRM 5's I have more control over the rate at which ammo is expended. I like being able to fire off a five missile volley to make a sniper duck, or see what the AMS coverage is like. Even if they accounted for recycle and spread, I'd stick with 5's.

I would support direct fire only lrms if they behaved like lrms do in TT: they are fire and forget and move as fast as any other projectile. The only way to avoid getting hit would be a duck behind cover, otherwise the missles home and hit. No need to keep a lock..just get one and fire. However, to compensate for the lack of indrect fire, an Arrow IV system should be added to the game, making it very costly to sit behind a ridgeline and play peek and poke.
The reality is indirect fire adds a potent weapon to the game as it forces opponents out of good positions and makes them take cover. However, when lrms were powerful, everyone complained about LRMAgeddon and thus they got nerfed.
The sad truth is LRMS are only dangerous to players who make a mistake and get caught moving slowly in the open. There is really only one map where they are potentially decisive, and most top players think of them as relatively useless. This all this complaining about the lack of merits of LRM 15's or 20's amuses me. If you are really worried about being good you won't bother at all. As I tell people when I get the "LRM NOOB" whine in game - IF YOUR *** DIES TO LRMs IT IS YOUR OWN DAMNED FAULT. You didn't take cover when you heard the waring, your didn't bring radar derp or AMS or you left the lovely bubble of your teammates ECM. Show me any other weapon in the game with so many possibilities of evasion or countermeasures.
I play mostly LRM boats so I disagree (somewhat) that LRMS are useless, but in all honesty I enjoy the head game of playing LRMS correctly - I am looking for guys who made a mistake. Also, I seriously suck at ballistics. The last thing anyone wants is me on their team in mech with AC5's or 10's ,

[wanderer]

KISS principle applies, especially because PGI.

1) Normalize spread. Bigger launchers stink because spread damage means you effectively get less out of more missiles than you should. Put everything around what we have the LRM 10 at today and surprise, LRM 15/20's become better weapons.

2) Increase velocity. Higher velocity = larger portion of the LRM "range" is actually accurate fire.

3) Screw not boating. We boat every other weapon in the game, and nearly all of them will gleefully put all their damage into a single armor plate at any effective range without a care. I'd be happy if I could launch and actually have my missiles hit the target standing still! Lasers will still put dozens of damage into things with precision, twin Gauss will still gouge a 30-point divot out of a single spot, AC's dakka away right to the crosshair pointer.


These are the simple, straightforward improvements that don't take PGI attempting to rewrite their half-understood coding. That is, they're the improvements most likely to actually FUNCTION in a reasonable timeframe.

---

Alternatively, give LRMs a spread based on lock time. Fire as soon as you get lock? Wider spread. Wait a bit? Spread narrows. A bit longer? Narrows some more. Firing causes the lock to spread back to maximum and resumes the narrowing process but does NOT break lock, just minimizes it.

Have crosshairs go from red to yellow to green (or change shape for colorblind HUD) with stronger lock on. ECM no longer blanks locks, but increases the time it takes to improve lock. NARC speeds lock acquisition but not the time it takes to narrow the lock. TAG doesn't increase lock speed but reduces narrowing time. Artemis improves both, but to a lesser extent and only with line-of-sight.

This would actually require coding, which in PGIs case is a roll of the dice. While more complex and likely satisfying, it'd also be far less likely to actually be brought to functionality.

[Gryphorim]

wanderer, on 14 June 2016 - 09:01 PM, said:

KISS principle applies, especially because PGI.

1) Normalize spread. Bigger launchers stink because spread damage means you effectively get less out of more missiles than you should. Put everything around what we have the LRM 10 at today and surprise, LRM 15/20's become better weapons.

2) Increase velocity. Higher velocity = larger portion of the LRM "range" is actually accurate fire.

3) Screw not boating. We boat every other weapon in the game, and nearly all of them will gleefully put all their damage into a single armor plate at any effective range without a care. I'd be happy if I could launch and actually have my missiles hit the target standing still! Lasers will still put dozens of damage into things with precision, twin Gauss will still gouge a 30-point divot out of a single spot, AC's dakka away right to the crosshair pointer.


These are the simple, straightforward improvements that don't take PGI attempting to rewrite their half-understood coding. That is, they're the improvements most likely to actually FUNCTION in a reasonable timeframe.

---

Alternatively, give LRMs a spread based on lock time. Fire as soon as you get lock? Wider spread. Wait a bit? Spread narrows. A bit longer? Narrows some more. Firing causes the lock to spread back to maximum and resumes the narrowing process but does NOT break lock, just minimizes it.

Have crosshairs go from red to yellow to green (or change shape for colorblind HUD) with stronger lock on. ECM no longer blanks locks, but increases the time it takes to improve lock. NARC speeds lock acquisition but not the time it takes to narrow the lock. TAG doesn't increase lock speed but reduces narrowing time. Artemis improves both, but to a lesser extent and only with line-of-sight.

This would actually require coding, which in PGIs case is a roll of the dice. While more complex and likely satisfying, it'd also be far less likely to actually be brought to functionality.

In many ways these are basically the same as the concept I put forward. The "crowding" element is intended to normalise spread, and the 3 step "resolution" is functionally similar to spread based on lock time. As for HUD element, I'd say it shrinking to indicate tighter spread conveys intent well enough.

I'd like a system that offers the greater benefit to a single launcher, with diminishing returns to boating. I'll clarify, though, that I'd like similar elements added to other weapon systems.

Edited by Gryphorim, 14 June 2016 - 11:37 PM.

[Aresye]

Delta 62, on 14 June 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I would like it if lrms needed direct line of sight to be locked on.

They could still be fired without direct line of sight, but the spotting teammate would require tag, narc, or a UAV in order to spot for lrms.

I'd love to see LRMs improved, but as long as you can have a teammate actively fighting a mech while simultaneously (somehow) holding locks on a completely separate target, allowing every single LRM carrier on their team to lock on, there's only so much they can be improved by.

I "get" that indirect spotting is in the TT rules, and that's why many people want it to stay. I get that.

What I DON'T get, is why those same people can't see the difference between the ACTUAL TT mechanics, and the, "I'm a light mech running circles around the entire enemy team at 150kph while magically holding perfect locks for my LRM teammates," BS that is the current mechanics of MWO LRMs, with no regards to movement and/or active combat related penalties.

[Gryphorim]

Indirect spotters should have to abide the same rules as direct fire LRM platforms. Spotter should need to get a target lock on behalf of LRM boat, but by same rules, indirect firer should get faster lock time.
However this would only work in a system where spotter could lock an enemy and stay hidden, ie, Infowar.

[C E Dwyer]

Only way to make big missile launchers viable using the current game mechanics is to reduce the number of missile hardpoints, or make lrm15 and 20 launchers group like LRM10, Two other options would be to reduce heat generated in larger launchers and cool down period.

Making them able to fire in line of sight without a lock isn't going to change a thing either, it will still make lighter launchers that can spam 5's rather than a 15 or 20 cluster, much better because they are still more flexible. and are still going to weigh the same.


The missile grouping suggestion has been mooted here off and on for at least two years by different people.

P.G.I don't listen, because they know best

[ImperialKnight]

It will never happen for the same reason PGI actually nerfed the AC2 a while back. All the players were confused why such a weak weapon system needed a nerf. Answer: low tier games.

Making LRMs more viable for higher tiers will turn lower tiers into a s**tstorm. Lower tier players have enough problems dealing with LRMs as it is. Making them better will see Tier 4/5 games turn into 24 mechs lobbing LRMs at each other.

PGI very briefly buffed LRMs about 1 year+ ago and it turned the whole forum and the MWO scene into a firestorm of hate, and the changes were reverted. No way they're going to try that again.

[EvilCow]

Ways to make LRMs more interesting:

Direct Mode:

- LOS only fire unless used on NARC, TAG or UAV (not simply by observation).
- Shorter flight time.
- Flatter trajectory.
- Increased damage.

Indirect Mode:

In this mode LRMs target an area rather than a vehicle, much like an artillery strikes, low damage but it can get things moving because the effect is cumulative.

This could be linked to command console as enabler, mechs with console could call for strikes on map locations and also set strike area size (small area for more damage or large dispersion for harassing), LRM mechs would simply lock on a virtual target icon and fire, if interested.

In indirect mode trajectory would be much higher and range increased, after the boost phase trajectory would be ballistic and missiles would not home on target but rain almost vertically.

Edited by EvilCow, 15 June 2016 - 04:25 AM.

[Davers]

As long as LRMs are 'auto hit with lock' weapons they will never be allowed to be good.

[Alistair Winter]

So... ghost bones?

I wonder if PGI has an overall plan for how LRMs are supposed to function for different mechs. It's not just a matter of making both 8xLRM5 and 2xLRM20 viable choices on the Archer. It's a question of what role LRM5s are supposed to have. Generally, LRM5 and LRM10 will be most popular for lights and mediums, and LRM15s and LRM20 will be most popular for heavies and assaults.

So the balancing should reflect this. It's not just a matter of making 2xLRM20 viable for heavies, it's also a matter of making sure that 2xLRM5 is a good choice for the Locust or Arctic Cheetah, and 2xLRM10 is a good choice for the Hunchback or Huntsman.

[JC Daxion]

Delta 62, on 14 June 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I would like it if lrms needed direct line of sight to be locked on.

They could still be fired without direct line of sight, but the spotting teammate would require tag, narc, or a UAV in order to spot for lrms.

as long as you lower the arc, and speed the lock time if you are getting your own lock.. then yes i highly agree.



I also think the LRM mechanics need to change for spread.. LRM5-20 should all have the same circumference of a spread, The larger launchers should add more missiles inside that circle.. Making larger launchers, or firing in larger clusters much more advantageous.

The larger the launcher, or more missiles lauched at the same time, would mean more would hit the CT... Chain firing 4 5's less would hit the CT... Not the exactly opposite that it is now.

In comparison it would be like streaks.. fire a few streaks and they kinda all spread around the mech, But say fire a cluster of SRM's from say both arms, and center torso, you would see a large spread covering the whole mech.


For lights, to me they are really just to heavy for the most part.. sorta like any missile based light,, really the only thing they can do to improve them for those mechs is give a nice cooldown quirk, and an +AMMO count quirk.. Ravens and commando's could really use some love here.. the SRM commandos would get a nice buff, and something like LRM ravens could have a place in the game.

Davers, on 15 June 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

As long as LRMs are 'auto hit with lock' weapons they will never be allowed to be good.

You know it's so funny people say this.. the easiest weapon to use in the game is a large laser... Yet they are good as well..

Edited by JC Daxion, 15 June 2016 - 06:15 AM.

[InspectorG]

crashlogic, on 14 June 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

I would say that boating, as I understand it, just means carrying mostly or all lrm launchers with few or no other weapons. It makes no difference whether these are lrm 5's or lrm20's. In point of fact some Mechs were intended to "Boat" since their primary mission was fire support. The MadDog and Archer are very good examples of this, and therefore they will inherently have more LRM hardpoints.
The preference for LRM5's in multiples is mostly a function of recycle time and spread. LRM5's recycle faster so mathematically they can actually put more missiles on target than larger launchers. The spread factor contributes more to components destroyed and kills (because so many groups are coming in so fast) more than it does to overall damage. More missiles ultimately do more damage. (3xlrm 15's do more damage on average than 6 x lrm 5's. 4 by LRM 20s is obscene when they hit together, its just gonne be forever before they can fire again.

My preference for LRM5's is mostly driven by ammunition. With LRM 5's I have more control over the rate at which ammo is expended. I like being able to fire off a five missile volley to make a sniper duck, or see what the AMS coverage is like. Even if they accounted for recycle and spread, I'd stick with 5's.

Some players have done some decent testing, LRM5s are superior.
Lighter
Faster recycle(DPS)
And the main advantage is they focus the CT way more than any other launcher. LRM20 basically evenly spread fire all over an enemy.

LRM5+Atremis+direct LoS is the way to go.

Not that im advocating LRMs, but if you want to troll and not totally suck, LRM5s are it.

[Novakaine]

Multiple lrm5 launchers are the cat's meow.
Great for suppression in FW.

[Apnu]

Delta 62, on 14 June 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I would like it if lrms needed direct line of sight to be locked on.

They could still be fired without direct line of sight, but the spotting teammate would require tag, narc, or a UAV in order to spot for lrms.

We'll never see LRMs used in the game if that's the case. LRMs have the slowest speed and would require a stupid amount of face time to hold the lock. They're already easy to avoid -- just find cover when they're flying. Also bring Radar Dep, break LOS and be instantly hidden. But with the kind of face time needed to LOS and locks means every high alpha or high DPS build will kill them before they do much. The triple gauss DWF, quad PPC, 4-5 AC5/UAC5 builds, and the quad UAC10 KDKs will kill LRM mechs fast.

The problem is the targeting system in MWO, it works against LRMs plus with ECM, that makes already the worst weapon system in the game even more worse.