151 replies to this topic

[DivineEvil]

- Maximum range should be reduced to 630 meters, as originally designed. Range of 1000m prevents any imaginable improvements to be made for LRMs, because given such it allows an overwhelming destruction across the large portion of the map from different directions. On its own, 1000m never allows to hit anything mobile. LRM is not an artillery weapon. If artillery weapons are needed, there's a Thumper, Sniper and Long Tom Artillery Cannons, Arrow-IV missile artillery system and Mech Mortars, that are all time-line valid, but not in the game.

- Efficiency of AMS should be increased. A single AMS should be able to at least completely eliminate a LRM5 volley when fired into a mech that carries it before it hits. This will increase the necessity to use the system and improve the efficiency of mechs capable of carrying more than one as well as AMS weapon modules. SSRMs can still be reasonably durable because they're effectively twice as heavy as LRM munitions.

- Time for acquiring locks should be increased. It will prevent abuse and will improve the efficiency of utility equipment items. It will also create an additional demand for Light spotters, who in turn should be rewarded more.

+ Missile velocity should be increased to 200m/s. Taking more than a second to reach a target in LRM's minimum range is outrageous. This does not overrides the suggestion to buff AMS efficiency, but will make them more reliable in general.

+ LRM not only fired without a lock, but also fired into a target with direct LoS should acquire linear trajectory. There's absolutely no reason for LRMs trying to avoid an obstacle, that actually doesn't exist. Parabolic trajectory together with slow velocity makes LRMs effectively crippled for everything but indirect fire.

+ LRMs fired with an acquired lock should track their target independently. Only ECM cover should neutralize LRMs guidance. There's plenty of ways to migitate LRM damage, but requiring to hold the lock the entire time makes LRM an utterly pathetic, barbaric weapon, and meaningless unless excessively boated.

[MischiefSC]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

I'd have called it things like splash mega-damage, head-seeking LRMs, CT-seeking LRMs, and so on. LRMs have arguably been some of the buggiest weapons in the game- and heck, they even managed that when they did CLAN LRMs for good measure.

LRMs as a direct-fire weapon will never compete with real direct-fire weapons, because you can't put a 40+ damage alpha into a single pixel. Spread damage doesn't beat pinpoint damage, ever. Take away IDF and you've not only castrated the system, you've reduced the game to endless peekfests, and you've also basically told people that hey, screw mortars and artillery because we can't have people not firing in a straight line and HITTING EACH OTHER.

You mean lik SRMS?

Yeah, nobody uses those.

You're trying to pretend that the ability to kill someone who can't shoot you back and weapons that track and hit enemies on their own isn't a balance issue if it's also got the same efficiencies as direct fire.

Not true. Artillery is popular in war for a reason - it's the power to kill the enemy at minimal risk to yourself. Great in RL, crappy FPS mechanic.

[wanderer]

Quote

Maximum range should be reduced to 630 meters, as originally designed

Remove all reduced-damage options for all other weapons, then. LRMs lose damage at long ranges from sheer inaccuracy due to the odds of a 5+ second shot actually hitting something besides dirt- and got the same extension as everyone else because otherwise, you could easily gun down an LRM boat without taking a scratch. Incidentally, PGI basically got that from the "extreme range" rule in TT- which for LRMs in TT is out to 840m. Considering how incredibly whifftastic an LRM is past 600m, I wouldn't cry if they trimmed the range down to 840-850m.

Quote

A single AMS should be able to at least completely eliminate a LRM5 volley when fired into a mech that carries it before it hits

AMS + module will obliterate an LRM 5 without trying as it is. Given a team actually using AMS, virtually nothing short of 60+ salvos will even get light damage through to a target.

People simply don't use AMS. Because LRMs aren't generally a threat.

Quote

Time for acquiring locks should be increased. It will prevent abuse and will improve the efficiency of utility equipment items. It will also create an additional demand for Light spotters, who in turn should be rewarded more.

Increase lock time any further and you won't have to worry about spotters, as you'll be able to poke with even more impunity than you do now. Any LRM boater with two functioning brain cells already has Artemis for his own locks. We can speed that up by flashing the "SHOOT ME OVER HERE" TAG laser, aka the "how to kill a light spotter" or NARC, which is basically saying that to get a stable lock, someone else has to give up 4+ tons.

Quote

Missile velocity should be increased to 200m/s. Taking more than a second to reach a target in LRM's minimum range is outrageous. This does not overrides the suggestion to buff AMS efficiency, but will make them more reliable in general.

About all I can agree with (and tweaking AMS damage up so it kills the same amount of missiles in the time it passes through).

Quote

LRM not only fired without a lock, but also fired into a target with direct LoS should acquire linear trajectory. There's absolutely no reason for LRMs trying to avoid an obstacle, that actually doesn't exist. Parabolic trajectory together with slow velocity makes LRMs effectively crippled for everything but indirect fire.

The arc is more there to prevent missiles from being led into the nearest terrain feature, thanks to the whole "I'm slow" thing. That and arcing fire doesn't end up with much higher odds of friendly fire. Dumbfire "flat shooting", as per OP, for good reasons.

Quote

LRMs fired with an acquired lock should track their target independently. Only ECM cover should neutralize LRMs guidance. There's plenty of ways to migitate LRM damage, but requiring to hold the lock the entire time makes LRM an utterly pathetic, barbaric weapon, and meaningless unless excessively boated.

Those would be Streak LRMs, which happen much later. No IDF mode, self-guiding, flat shooting, etc. etc. Not to say you can't help there. Faster LRMs = less time maintaining lock. Slower de-lock = less time pointed straight at target getting your torso melted. And so on.

[wanderer]

Quote

You mean lik SRMS?

Yeah, nobody uses those.

You mean SRMs, the missile everyone uses at a range where spread is essentially meaningless, such as brawlers and light 'Mechs who close to nose-picking range to fire- and any guide worth mentioning discusses doing so to insure your SRMs actually are effective?

LRMs don't get to do that. Spread is the same at 181m as it is at 1000m. Even the maligned LB-X can compensate for spread by closing the distance (it's a shotgun in PGIThink, after all), and they're trash outside of uberquirking.

[DivineEvil]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

Remove all reduced-damage options for all other weapons, then. LRMs lose damage at long ranges from sheer inaccuracy due to the odds of a 5+ second shot actually hitting something besides dirt- and got the same extension as everyone else because otherwise, you could easily gun down an LRM boat without taking a scratch. Incidentally, PGI basically got that from the "extreme range" rule in TT- which for LRMs in TT is out to 840m. Considering how incredibly whifftastic an LRM is past 600m, I wouldn't cry if they trimmed the range down to 840-850m.

LRM accuracy does not falls off with range. LRMs are flying in a static formation and fall on their target in that formation regardless of distance traversed. If LRMs are substantially faster and have independent guidance, then distance is entirely irrelevant. What would make difference is AMS, ECM, cover and speed.

Quote

AMS + module will obliterate an LRM 5 without trying as it is. Given a team actually using AMS, virtually nothing short of 60+ salvos will even get light damage through to a target.

People simply don't use AMS. Because LRMs aren't generally a threat.

It has to provide that without modules. Modules should improve their performance even further.
It depends on the size of a team, how tight their formation is and target's position in that formation. AMS should not require an entire team to carry one to be effective.

LRMs aren't generally a threat not because they're weak. They aren't a threat because they're unreliable.

Quote

Increase lock time any further and you won't have to worry about spotters, as you'll be able to poke with even more impunity than you do now. Any LRM boater with two functioning brain cells already has Artemis for his own locks. We can speed that up by flashing the "SHOOT ME OVER HERE" TAG laser, aka the "how to kill a light spotter" or NARC, which is basically saying that to get a stable lock, someone else has to give up 4+ tons.

Lock time and time to acquire a lock is vastly different things. Please pay more attention to your reading.

Quote

The arc is more there to prevent missiles from being led into the nearest terrain feature, thanks to the whole "I'm slow" thing. That and arcing fire doesn't end up with much higher odds of friendly fire. Dumbfire "flat shooting", as per OP, for good reasons.

Arc is here to avoid obstacles along the way, nothing more. If you can directly see your target, then there's no terrain feature inbetween, which makes an arc pointless waste of hit chance. If LRM would be capable to fly directly into the target, ti would make them a much more intimidating as a direct-fire weapon. Minimum range is more than enough to avoid friendly-fire, unless you're piloting as an idiot.

Quote

Those would be Streak LRMs, which happen much later. No IDF mode, self-guiding, flat shooting, etc. etc. Not to say you can't help there. Faster LRMs = less time maintaining lock. Slower de-lock = less time pointed straight at target getting your torso melted. And so on.

Nope. All LRMs are by their technical definition self-guided, which means they take the signature and guide themselves to the target. SLRMs are merely LRMs with streak guidance. You can't fire them without a lock, and you cannot fire them indirectly, but they always hit. That's it.

[MischiefSC]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

You mean SRMs, the missile everyone uses at a range where spread is essentially meaningless, such as brawlers and light 'Mechs who close to nose-picking range to fire- and any guide worth mentioning discusses doing so to insure your SRMs actually are effective?

LRMs don't get to do that. Spread is the same at 181m as it is at 1000m. Even the maligned LB-X can compensate for spread by closing the distance (it's a shotgun in PGIThink, after all), and they're trash outside of uberquirking.

SRMS spread damage they just do a lot of it for their tonnage and heat. So they're the preeminent brawling weapon.

Same concept. LRMs working like guided SRMs but not like Streaks. Track like they do now but fast and flat (ish). Higher DPS would make a solid weapon system for most builds without boating or boated.

[wanderer]

DivineEvil, on 28 June 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

LRM accuracy does not falls off with range. LRMs are flying in a static formation and fall on their target in that formation regardless of distance traversed. If LRMs are substantially faster and have independent guidance, then distance is entirely irrelevant. What would make difference is AMS, ECM, cover and speed.

The odds of an LRM missing falls off with range for the simple reason that the odds of something interrupting the lock increases with time- especially since the target knows they're coming. They can get to cover (or frequently are already on the way to it, given the tendency for many to be peeking from cover). They can end up in a hostile ECM field. Enemy fire can force you into cover. If you're using a lock from someone else, they may be forced to break it to protect themselves (and at longer ranges, the odds that it's a team lock increase greatly).

The more chances there are for a lock failure, the higher the odds of your shot being a 100%....MISS. That's why LRMs right now lose accuracy with range, because longer range = more time to target = lower odds of a lock holding until a hit.

Quote

t has to provide that without modules. Modules should improve their performance even further.
It depends on the size of a team, how tight their formation is and target's position in that formation. AMS should not require an entire team to carry one to be effective.

And if it's easy to cancel LRMs out entirely, doesn't that make them even worse owing to the joys of "They work, but IF a few people have AMS, they don't work"? Surely, you'd be pissing fire if someone could just pack anti-laser or anti-autocannon gear that would cancel out your weapon systems for a much lower investment in weight.

Quote

LRMs aren't generally a threat not because they're weak. They aren't a threat because they're unreliable.

See above. There are more hard counters to LRMs than any other weapon in the game, never mind the soft ones.

Quote

Lock time and time to acquire a lock is vastly different things. Please pay more attention to your reading.

You state "Time for acquiring locks should be increased." That's what I'm talking about. The longer it takes to get a lock-on completed, the more time you stand out in plain sight facing your target, trying to keep your crosshairs in place and having to suck up whatever they fire your way until you do get that lock. For trading fire, that's already rough. More face time is suicidal.

Quote

Arc is here to avoid obstacles along the way, nothing more. If you can directly see your target, then there's no terrain feature inbetween, which makes an arc pointless waste of hit chance. If LRM would be capable to fly directly into the target, ti would make them a much more intimidating as a direct-fire weapon. Minimum range is more than enough to avoid friendly-fire, unless you're piloting as an idiot.

A self-guided missile flying in a straight line at a relatively low speed that doesn't actively avoid terrain can be dodged just fine. Duck back around a corner or even a decent sized tree like in Bog. Your missiles eat cover. Ditto hills and such- if your target is hillhumping, a direct line equals no hit. Straight lines mean your nu-lurm (unless it's flying at ballistic weapon speeds) has more chances to encounter terrain than if it's able to spend more of it's time above said terrain. This is especially bad in situations where you're not the guy in front- if you have LOS, your missiles will automatically go into direct-fire mode and instead of having a shot, you now have no shot at all.

Quote

Nope. All LRMs are by their technical definition self-guided, which means they take the signature and guide themselves to the target. SLRMs are merely LRMs with streak guidance. You can't fire them without a lock, and you cannot fire them indirectly, but they always hit. That's it.

A Streak LRM, once it gets lock, hits. That is, it's a fully self-guided missile and has 100% of the data needed to get to it's target and hit without fail when launched. Standard LRMs fire on less than 100% hits- that is, the salvo will fire, attempt to get to target, but it's not guaranteed to do so on launch. It's not fully self-guided and relies on course correction data from the launcher to hit. Since you're saying that your nu-lurm will self-guide when launched and hit barring ECM- it's a Streak LRM, not a standard.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 28 June 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Artillery is popular in war for a reason - it's the power to kill the enemy at minimal risk to yourself. Great in RL, crappy FPS eSport mechanic.

FTFY.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 28 June 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

FTFY.

Pfft. More credit than is due. That's not a term one can reasonably call MWO. Calvin ball is more of a pro sport than MWO is an esport.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 28 June 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Pfft. More credit than is due. That's not a term one can reasonably call MWO. Calvin ball is more of a pro sport than MWO is an esport.

I was merely referring to an aspiration, not reality. And by that I actually meant "delusion".

[ExoForce]

DivineEvil, on 28 June 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

- Time for acquiring locks should be increased. It will prevent abuse and will improve the efficiency of utility equipment items. It will also create an additional demand for Light spotters, who in turn should be rewarded more.

Time to lock without LoS is longer than time to lock with LoS.
So, it is already implemented in the game.

[Nightshade24]

totgeboren, on 28 June 2016 - 04:22 AM, said:

Target Retention only works if you yourself have acquired the target, Artemis only works with los and TAG requires los.
Can you spot the trend?

Pretty sure Target Retention works regardless (obviously if you pressed R and looked in the direction of a mech. Obviously getting a lock first is needed to loose a lock) and not sure about you but I was speaking down on having your own TAG so that comment being brought up randomly is rather non applicable, and i didn't even mention Artemis which doesn't even interact with lock retention...