54 replies to this topic

[Roughneck45]

Navid A1, on 20 August 2016 - 04:57 AM, said:

If competition was the defining factor; Textures, effects, and all of the art assets should go right out of the window. Those have no use in competitions as well.

Well that's just optimizing for PC performance.

You balance from the top down, not the bottom up.

Trauglodyte, on 19 August 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Just make LRMs target bones. There, problem solved. End of story.

This is an intriguing thought. I'm not sure how it would play out but it would be fun to test.

I'd probably start with their cooldowns, bringing them all much closer together.

[Navid A1]

Roughneck45, on 20 August 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

This is an intriguing thought. I'm not sure how it would play out but it would be fun to test.

I'd probably start with their cooldowns, bringing them all much closer together.

Large cooldowns for larger racks makes sense.
Larger spread doesn't

All launchers fire the same missiles under the same tracking mechanism. Therefore, they should have the same spread.
Larger launchers take more time to reload. Therefore, longer cooldowns for larger LRMs.

[crashlogic]

This is a not thread really. The LRM 5 like most LRMs is easily countered and is far fgrom the weapon that needs to be nerfed the most. Plenty of LRM boats I see i9n game still use 20's. I myself use a lot of 10's. The trouble is someone dies by lrms and they blame the weapon not themselves.

[Navid A1]

crashlogic, on 20 August 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

This is a not thread really. The LRM 5 like most LRMs is easily countered and is far fgrom the weapon that needs to be nerfed the most. Plenty of LRM boats I see i9n game still use 20's. I myself use a lot of 10's. The trouble is someone dies by lrms and they blame the weapon not themselves.

This thread is about improving LRM20s and 15s.. not sure what do you mean.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

lrm5 have too small spread.
All lrms should have same spread.
If you want smaller spread there is artemis if you like.
Going smaller launcher for this is a bit ridicule.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 20 August 2016 - 08:56 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Sader325, on 19 August 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

There is absolutely no room to nerf 5's to make the other LRMs better.

5's are on the literal edge of usefulness. If you nerf them at all, even if it means buffing 10's 15's and 20's. Then it just makes them all useless.

So I'll say it again: Every LRM Launcher spread needs to be where 5's are right now. Not close to, not sort of like, not maybe kinda. EXACTLY like 5's.


Then you move on to part 2 of this fix.

After you reduce the spread, you then restrict every innersphere missile launcher in the game to 5 tubes. That means all IS mechs will fire in streamed volley of 5's, regardless of the type of launcher they are using.

The rate of fire of the 5 launches should be roughly similar to the clan stream. LRM's are now fixed.

Well you totally lost me on this one.. What the heck is the point of larger launchers if they only go out in groups of 5's? So in other words you are saying, Only 5's should exist.. sorry but that's not battle tech IMO, because if you are only launching in groups of 5's that is what they are.

There is nothing i like more in this game than seeing a cluster of LRM20-30-40 crashing into a mech causing major damage..

The only reasons why LRM5's are more effective is because they target the CT far greater, AND they blind the pilots, and honestly the second is the bigger reason, getting blinded by chainfire, so you can't see to maneuver is by far the worst part of 5's.. Just dump the blinding and they would be half as effective to start with.


LRM's are a bulk AOE hit.. NOT a pin-point targeting weapon, and that is exactly why 5's are so broken, because they almost act like a direct targeted weapon and not a AOE lrm, that destroys many parts of the mech at the same time.

Spread 5's so they don't target the same CT, Increase damage a bit, maybe bring back splash, but don't make it Crit on the CT like they used too,, Then balance power, refire, and heat.. Maybe add bonus damage to armor for example.

There are lots of things that can be done, outside of just making LRM's 5's...


there are enough pin-point weapons in the game, we don't need more.. in fact we need more ways to make groups pin-point less.

Edited by JC Daxion, 20 August 2016 - 09:18 AM.

[Navid A1]

JC Daxion, on 20 August 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

Well you totally lost me on this one.. What the heck is the point of larger launchers if they only go out in groups of 5's? So in other words you are saying, Only 5's should exist.. sorry but that's not battle tech IMO, because if you are only launching in groups of 5's that is what they are.

Groups of 5... that is how it is in table top i think.

What sader says i something like this:

[Moldur]

The fact that LRM-5s are superior basically favors mechs that are meant to be LRM platforms over random mechs that happen to be able to cram in some LRM-15s or 20s.

The largers LRMs are a downgrade from LRM-5s because large lrms are the only option that mechs without a lot of missile hardpoints have. This makes having more missile hardpoints worth something.

A mech with 2 missile hardpoints is not meant to be as good at firing LRMs as a mech with 4 or 6 missile hardpoints.

Currently LRM-15s and 20s are absolutely wasteful in most cases. A buff is not unwarranted, but being able to boat many LRM-5s should still be much more favorable.

[Koniving]

Okay really quick here's a fix that I thought of, based on the TT mention and toying around with cluster hits.

LRM5s have all 5 missiles go for one body part. (5 damage tries for one spot per launcher.)
LRM10s have half the salvo target one body part and the other half target another. (5 damage tries for one spot per half salvo per launcher.)
LRM15s have a third of the missiles target one of three body parts per salvo (5 damage tries per body part for 3 body parts per salvo per launcher.)
LRM20s have each salvo target four body parts and subdivide the salvo into fourths.

That is for the IS.
Now, give missiles a decent arc at short range and a strong arc (come almost straight down) at 660 meters.
(Note, cannot address firing rate without causing issues for head launchers, so a possible thought is to have smaller launchers arc less and larger launchers arc more, so big launchers would be better suited for indirect fire than smaller launchers. Another alternative is to give bigger launchers faster missiles to make up for the slower rate though explaining it may be difficult.)


Clans. Missiles are to target individual bones (except head) at random or lot in groups of 2 or 3 per salvo per launcher. Would prefer them to target individually however.
Remove minimum range degradation altogether.
Reduce missile arc at all ranges by 15%, making Clan LRMs more direct fire yet still capable of indirect fire. This will make them a more Clan personified weapon.

Ultimately, the difference between IS and Clan is that IS forces ( of a singular allegiance) are trained to work together, and their LRMs are also described in the 1980s as launching in a ballistic angle. Clans in the same source expressly state they are fired directly at their targets and optional rules exist to exclude indirect fire from Clans completely. Clan mentality in combat rewards personal glory before all except the honor of their Clan, and as such teamwork is not meant to be on their forefront thought.

Moldur, on 20 August 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

The fact that LRM-5s are superior basically favors mechs that are meant to be LRM platforms over random mechs that happen to be able to cram in some LRM-15s or 20s.

The largers LRMs are a downgrade from LRM-5s because large lrms are the only option that mechs without a lot of missile hardpoints have. This makes having more missile hardpoints worth something.

A mech with 2 missile hardpoints is not meant to be as good at firing LRMs as a mech with 4 or 6 missile hardpoints.

Currently LRM-15s and 20s are absolutely wasteful in most cases. A buff is not unwarranted, but being able to boat many LRM-5s should still be much more favorable.

Issue is boating 4 LRM5s is only 8 tons vs 1 LRM20 at 10 tons, plus LRM5's faster firing rate, tighter grouping and lower heat per missile.

Edited by Koniving, 20 August 2016 - 11:11 AM.

[Navid A1]

Moldur, on 20 August 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

The fact that LRM-5s are superior basically favors mechs that are meant to be LRM platforms over random mechs that happen to be able to cram in some LRM-15s or 20s.

The largers LRMs are a downgrade from LRM-5s because large lrms are the only option that mechs without a lot of missile hardpoints have. This makes having more missile hardpoints worth something.

A mech with 2 missile hardpoints is not meant to be as good at firing LRMs as a mech with 4 or 6 missile hardpoints.

Currently LRM-15s and 20s are absolutely wasteful in most cases. A buff is not unwarranted, but being able to boat many LRM-5s should still be much more favorable.

That analogy is not correct.
Number of hardpoints is something PGI invented.

Besides...
Catapult-C1 says hello. (well know heavy fire support mech.. in MWO 2M hardpoints)

Longbow-7Q says hi too (One of the best fire support mechs in existence... In MWO it would have had 4M hardpoints)

Edited by Navid A1, 20 August 2016 - 09:47 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Moldur, on 20 August 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

A mech with 2 missile hardpoints is not meant to be as good at firing LRMs as a mech with 4 or 6 missile hardpoints.

Currently LRM-15s and 20s are absolutely wasteful in most cases. A buff is not unwarranted, but being able to boat many LRM-5s should still be much more favorable.

Why not? If you have the weight, and say a shoulder mounted 15 launcher, Why shouldn't it be a good weapon? Or a pair of Dual 20's on a catapult, with some streaks and lasers to pesky lights? Shouldn't those be good options for tonnage use?


I don't get why though you say 4-6 5's should be better than a few larger launchers.. should 4-6 SRM2 launchers be better than a pair of 4's or 6's? 3 SRM6's with art, is far better than boating up 6 SRM2's. (not to say my commando with 3 SRM2 launchers isn't fun, But it sure is a hard mech to play, and doesn't wreak things like say a solid medium with few larger launchers.



@navid,, Maybe TT is that way i dunno.. I have only played the mech warrior and mech commander games, and all those games fire in a single volley, and larger launchers=Better, well till now.

[jaxjace]

Been asking for this for over a year. LRMS are a useless weapon in general, the fact that several of the launchers are even more garbage is just stupid.

Make LRMS a viable weapon system that doesnt rely on ********.

[Quaamik]

Personal preffered solution:

Give all LRMs the same spread (same as current LRM5s).
Indirect fire spread should stay the same as current LRM5s.
Direct fire spread should shrink to 1/3 the diameter as current if you have lock.
Direct fire spread without lock should be same as the indirect fire spread.

[Madcap72]

Navid A1, on 20 August 2016 - 04:57 AM, said:

That is not the correct approach. In fact that shows that there is a problem.

If competition was the defining factor; Textures, effects, and all of the art assets should go right out of the window. Those have no use in competitions as well.

Really? Then why do so many defend their opinion based on this mythical competition?

[jaxjace]

Madcap72, on 19 August 2016 - 08:53 PM, said:

LRMS are useless and no one uses them in competition, might as well not waste resources changing them.

PGI does this for its whole armory,

Half the weaponsystems in this game are ****
the other half are broken

then theres a few in the middle that are JUSSST right. IS ML IS AC5 IS AC10 (honestly cant think of any other perfectly balanced weapons)


reminded of this

El Bandito, on 02 November 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

Good luck with it, PGI.

I doubt they will ever get LRMS right.

Edited by jaxjace, 21 August 2016 - 03:42 PM.