94 replies to this topic

[Stone Wall]

Belacose, on 25 June 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

Personally I hope they never buff LRM. Things are already annoying enough as is. On certain maps like Polar Highlands i get tired of repeatedly shutting my mech down and back on.

Yes, I'm biased as I don't really see myself ever having any desire to play LRM boats. Too boring.

LRMs are weaker in this game than in past MW games. You are lucky to deal with the pansy version of LRMs. They don't hurt as much, they don't knock you down, and the enemy can't shoot the ground near you within 200m and have you fall from the splash.

Edited by Stone Wall, 25 June 2016 - 03:26 PM.

[Sader325]

Navid A1, on 25 June 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

That mock up i made a while back was just some quick thinking into this. Didn't go through small details.
I guess constant acceleration can work better than a piece-wise function... the concept was to have some form of acceleration to make this weapon system viable beyond 600m, without changing its current flight times for short range use.

The speed currently listed for LRMs is the flight path speed (not speed on x axis). That is why the missile takes so much time to reach its target. The speed I listed is also for the flight path... to somehow compensate for the flight path arc.



Spread is the other major concern... the main reason behind LRM20 and LRM15 inferiority is that mind-blowing huge spread:

Current spread:

Maybe if enough people promote this image PGI will see it and reduce everything to LRM 5 Spread.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Sader325, on 25 June 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Maybe if enough people promote this image PGI will see it and reduce everything to LRM 5 Spread.

Lurmlas approves this message.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

smokytehbear, on 25 June 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean by this.

I mean them coding in drag isn't a big deal b/c the entire formula boils down to a scalar

You'd have seen that if you read it.

[smokytehbear]

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

I mean them coding in drag isn't a big deal b/c the entire formula boils down to a scalar

You'd have seen that if you read it.

What? Don't know why you're being a douche about it first off, I did read it.

Ex Atlas Overlord, on 25 June 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

F(air resistance) is just = Some constant (air density*drag*area / 2)(velocity^2)

So it's still just a constant by the velocity function...

The real question is are they going to take the time to code in a function for acceleration (and thus velocity)

Do you not see (velocity^2) in your own post? That's not a scalar. This is a differential equation actually, because both values are dependent on each other. Velocity goes up -> Drag goes up -> Velocity doesn't go up as fast anymore.

Maybe you were thinking of friction? Drag is not a constant, and it is definitely not a scalar. Scalar's have no direction, and drag absolutely does, it's a vector. So once again, I'm not really sure what you mean by what you've said.

Even in very simplified forms, drag is extremely complex. Now of course they don't have to actually compute the equation every time, velocity could just follow a function over time since it fired. Preferably non-linear but I don't know that it would be totally noticeable if it was just linear for simplification. Either way, I'd totally promote the idea of missiles getting faster as they travel until reaching some terminal velocity.

[Navid A1]

Sader325, on 25 June 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Maybe if enough people promote this image PGI will see it and reduce everything to LRM 5 Spread.

I tweeted that to russ a couple times. ignored always.

The problem is that the guy who decides on balance (we all know who he is), has a personal problem with LRMs and his idea of LRM gameplay and effectiveness is dated back to 2012 when LRMs had splash damage and a broken flight path.

Maybe it can make a difference if enough people reach out to russ and the balance overlord guy.

[Captain Mittens]

To the people claiming that a late stage acceleration is unrealistic.

The missile burns fuel as it travels, so it becomes lighter as it travels forwards becoming more agile and faster. Or if you want to argue to opposite direction, you could say that at short range it maneuvers more aggressively and at longer range it reduces thrust to conserve fuel.

To the amateur rocket scientists, this would not require a liquid fuel engine, you could simply shape the solid fuel to burn faster at first, and then slower near the end by narrowing the fuel, and packing the warhead around the fuel accordingly.

[Sader325]

Captain Mittens, on 25 June 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

To the people claiming that a late stage acceleration is unrealistic.

The missile burns fuel as it travels, so it becomes lighter as it travels forwards becoming more agile and faster. Or if you want to argue to opposite direction, you could say that at short range it maneuvers more aggressively and at longer range it reduces thrust to conserve fuel.

To the amateur rocket scientists, this would not require a liquid fuel engine, you could simply shape the solid fuel to burn faster at first, and then slower near the end by narrowing the fuel, and packing the warhead around the fuel accordingly.

Honestly I'm not really against the idea. But would it really add much to the game?

I don't honestly think so. I'de honestly prefer they just simply reduce the spread and be done with it. Creating whole new mechanics for velocity just seems like a good way for PGI to **** up somehow.

[Scout Derek]

Sader325, on 25 June 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

Honestly I'm not really against the idea. But would it really add much to the game?

I don't honestly think so. I'de honestly prefer they just simply reduce the spread and be done with it. Creating whole new mechanics for velocity just seems like a good way for PGI to **** up somehow.

Reducing spread would be easier and less painful than doing what is suggested, which is okay, but the spread reduction is much easier in general.

[Navid A1]

I think reducing spread for larger racks should have priority over acceleration... at least it can be done in a very short order.

IF... someone listens!

[Scout Derek]

Navid A1, on 25 June 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

I think reducing spread for larger racks should have priority over acceleration... at least it can be done in a very short order.

IF... someone listens!

Maybe I can try my

Magic!

No guarantees.

Edited by Procurator Derek, 25 June 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[ChewBaka]

You want LRM15s and 20s to be as efficient as the LRM5?

You want LRMageddon to happen? Because that's how you get LRMageddon.

[Navid A1]

ChewBaka, on 25 June 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

You want LRM15s and 20s to be as efficient as the LRM5?

You want LRMageddon to happen? Because that's how you get LRMageddon.

Seems like you don't know the reason behind the previous lurmageddon and are just jumping into sky is falling wagon.
lurmageddon in the past was because of lrm splash damage and broken flight paths.

Those... were fixed long time ago.

Honestly, even with reduced spread, LRMs will remain a situational weapon... but at least the 10 ton LRM20 will mean something.




Lets make a rule.

If you want to speak for or against lrm5 level spread for all lrm racks, you better support your arguement with reason.
Otherwise... you know the exit.

Edited by Navid A1, 25 June 2016 - 10:27 PM.

[ChewBaka]

Navid A1, on 25 June 2016 - 10:23 PM, said:

Seems like you don't know the reason behind the previous lurmageddon and are just jumping into sky is falling wagon.
lurmageddon in the past was because of lrm splash damage and broken flight paths.

Those... were fixed long time ago.

Honestly, even with reduced spread, LRMs will remain a situational weapon... but at least the 10 ton LRM20 will mean something.




Lets make a rule.

If you want to speak for or against lrm5 level spread for all lrm racks, you better support your arguement with reason.
Otherwise... you know the exit.

Situational? I can do the math. If all 15 and 20 missiles cluster so tightly like the LRM5 that a whole bunch of them are going to hit the torsos, I am going to drive nothing but LRM boats in PUGs.

We all know how dangerous a mech boating 6xLRM5s are. The 4xLRM15 is not as feared somehow simply because of the missile spread. But if that suddenly becomes 4x3xLRM5 which is essentially 12xLRM5...yeah...we're going to see no end of that.

[Sader325]

ChewBaka, on 25 June 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

Situational? I can do the math. If all 15 and 20 missiles cluster so tightly like the LRM5 that a whole bunch of them are going to hit the torsos, I am going to drive nothing but LRM boats in PUGs.

We all know how dangerous a mech boating 6xLRM5s are. The 4xLRM15 is not as feared somehow simply because of the missile spread. But if that suddenly becomes 4x3xLRM5 which is essentially 12xLRM5...yeah...we're going to see no end of that.

So you want a weapon to be bad, so you can feel safe?

[Navid A1]

ChewBaka, on 25 June 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

Situational? I can do the math. If all 15 and 20 missiles cluster so tightly like the LRM5 that a whole bunch of them are going to hit the torsos, I am going to drive nothing but LRM boats in PUGs.

We all know how dangerous a mech boating 6xLRM5s are. The 4xLRM15 is not as feared somehow simply because of the missile spread. But if that suddenly becomes 4x3xLRM5 which is essentially 12xLRM5...yeah...we're going to see no end of that.

The solution is removal of all quirks that deal with missile cooldown and velocity..


Currently
An 2 ton LRM5 has a dps of 1.54.
a 7 ton LRM15 has 2.73 dps
and a 10 ton LRM20 has 3.08

You know what that means?
it means that with 2 LRM5s you basically have an LRM20 with much much lower spread and with just 4 TONS.!... 4!... it means the same mech can bring a sh* tons of backup weapons while he is pounding you with his mini super accurate LRM20.

If you give LRM20 the same spread as LRM5, The tonnage cost itself will be the balancing factor. as the mech will have to sacrifice speed and weapons to make room...
Upside is that it can throw big and dangerous punches
But the downside is that it gets neutered very easily if someone gets close or i the enemy uses cover and missile flight time to take it out.


Seems pretty balanced to me.

[ChewBaka]

Navid A1, on 25 June 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

The solution is removal of all quirks that deal with missile cooldown and velocity..


Currently
An 2 ton LRM5 has a dps of 1.54.
a 7 ton LRM15 has 2.73 dps
and a 10 ton LRM20 has 3.08

You know what that means?
it means that with 2 LRM5s you basically have an LRM20 with much much lower spread and with just 4 TONS.!... 4!... it means the same mech can bring a sh* tons of backup weapons while he is pounding you with his mini super accurate LRM20.

If you give LRM20 the same spread as LRM5, The tonnage cost itself will be the balancing factor. as the mech will have to sacrifice speed and weapons to make room...
Upside is that it can throw big and dangerous punches
But the downside is that it gets neutered very easily if someone gets close or i the enemy uses cover and missile flight time to take it out.


Seems pretty balanced to me.

I do get what you mean. The tricky part of balancing LRMs is that if you want to make it useful in competitive play, it will tip it over towards being 'overpowered' in PUG play in the lower tiers.

I would say the balance of LRMs is about right in the lower tiers, even if they are not so great in upper tiers and competitive play. People are already complaining about how annoying they are in T3 downwards. If they become any better, that's the only weapon we'll see in T4 and T5.

There will be no 'neutering'. Brawlers won't even have any chance to get close. Any who make the attempt will find they are doing so alone as the rest of their team are either LRM boats or snipers. They will be the first to die in a hail of LRMs.

PUG games will be decided by who brought the most LRMs to the party. That's what I predict will happen.

[Navid A1]

ChewBaka, on 25 June 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

I do get what you mean. The tricky part of balancing LRMs is that if you want to make it useful in competitive play, it will tip it over towards being 'overpowered' in PUG play in the lower tiers.

I would say the balance of LRMs is about right in the lower tiers, even if they are not so great in upper tiers and competitive play. People are already complaining about how annoying they are in T3 downwards. If they become any better, that's the only weapon we'll see in T4 and T5.

There will be no 'neutering'. Brawlers won't even have any chance to get close. Any who make the attempt will find they are doing so alone as the rest of their team are either LRM boats or snipers. They will be the first to die in a hail of LRMs.

PUG games will be decided by who brought the most LRMs to the party. That's what I predict will happen.

LRMs will never be in competitive play... ever!
The LRM mechanics just don't work in comp play.

I've been on both ends of and LRM boat an its target. The part where you think they die in a hail of lrms is not correct (its outright wrong tbh). Its the usual illusion that people who make LRM atlases have in their minds.

fixing LRM spreads across the board have another benefit. It teaches the new players tactics. When a new player gets rekt in the open by a hail of lurms, He will understand not to run in the open and will use cover next time (speaking from experience here)

Right now, the level of play in lower tiers is so painfully low that even the sh*t LRM20 seems OP. The problem with that is that when they get to T3 in their first 10 matches they get rekt so hard by T1 queue. and that is not good for player number retention. Because the potential paying customers come from the ones that made it that far.

Edited by Navid A1, 26 June 2016 - 12:28 AM.

[Destoroyah]

It's my opinion that ALL LRM's should be normalized at the spread of a LRM 10. The Problem with reducing them all to 5 spread lvl is it greatly reduces the value of missle accessory equipment like Artemis/TAG/NARC. At 10 Spread these booster equipment actually make a difference and are thereby worth the investment while a unbuffed 10 spread is still reasonable reliable.
Also Larger launchers should run Cooler overall then the smaller ones in comparable missle output.
This should be done first before any other adjustments are made to LRM's to improve there viability.

Edited by Destoroyah, 26 June 2016 - 01:39 AM.

[Sader325]

Destoroyah, on 26 June 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

It's my opinion that ALL LRM's should be normalized at the spread of a LRM 10. The Problem with reducing them all to 5 spread lvl is it greatly reduces the value of missle accessory equipment like Artemis/TAG/NARC. At 10 Spread these booster equipment actually make a difference and are thereby worth the investment while a unbuffed 10 spread is still reasonable reliable.
Also Larger launchers should run Cooler overall then the smaller ones in comparable missle output.
This should be done first before any other adjustments are made to LRM's to improve there viability.

LRM 10s with artemis are worthless.

LRM 5's with artemis are literally at the edge of usefullness. Anything beyond this spread is pretty much a complete waste of time.