54 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

El Bandito, on 19 August 2016 - 06:47 AM, said:

Yeah, that LRM5 loophole needs to be closed, without further obsoleting LRMs.

I got to agree again.

[JC Daxion]

Sader325, on 19 August 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

Normalize spread to 5's not 10's.

Your kidding right??? So in stead of 5 missiles in a tight circle, you have 20??? many mechs it only takes 3-4 vollies to kill a mech with 5's, so a single volley from 20's should be one shots? Granted that is on a non-moving mech in testing grounds but still.. I've watched 5's steam and core mechs so fast.


Normalize up to 15's.. Make 5's the weakest missile, not the strongest.. Make taking a couple or 10's or 15 launchers actually mean something....

Also, they could make the power draw scale, so larger launchers use less over all,, Say firing a single 20, is less power than 4 5's if fired at the same time. (makes since being it is just one system, not 4)


I don't want 5's ruined, but i certainly don't think they should be the best option, as they are now.


I do like the line of site idea, to decreasing the circle, and i would also love the trajectory to be flattened, but i don't think any of this is in the scope of the PTS.. though maybe it can make it in sooner than later

[Navid A1]

JC Daxion, on 19 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Your kidding right??? So in stead of 5 missiles in a tight circle, you have 20??? many mechs it only takes 3-4 vollies to kill a mech with 5's, so a single volley from 20's should be one shots? Granted that is on a non-moving mech in testing grounds but still.. I've watched 5's steam and core mechs so fast.

No he is not kidding.
Sorry, but you are imagining things.
If what you said was true, I could bring a Griffin with 4 LRM5s (equivalent of a LRM20 with lrm5 level spread) and dominate the entire game... one-shotting mechs left ad right... and 4xLRM5 is 8 tons compared to a 10 ton LRM20. Read the comparison here
Do not forget that you are talking about a 10 ton weapon system here... with 6.33s cooldown. That kind of weapon should mess you up pretty bad.

JC Daxion, on 19 August 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Normalize up to 15's.. Make 5's the weakest missile, not the strongest.. Make taking a couple or 10's or 15 launchers actually mean something....

Also, they could make the power draw scale, so larger launchers use less over all,, Say firing a single 20, is less power than 4 5's if fired at the same time. (makes since being it is just one system, not 4)

I do like the line of site idea, to decreasing the circle, and i would also love the trajectory to be flattened, but i don't think any of this is in the scope of the PTS.. though maybe it can make it in sooner than later

Normalizing to something between 5 and 10 will solve the problem.
Remember, LRM5 has the least cool down and is the most efficient launcher in terms of tube per ton.

Edited by Navid A1, 19 August 2016 - 01:00 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

Hit the Deck, on 19 August 2016 - 06:11 AM, said:

Normalising all LRMs spread to LRM 5 could be a good idea. I think PGI tried to adopt the TT mechanics (spread is calculated per 5 missiles) but it just make bigger LRMs bad in MWO.

As for the worsening DPS as you get bigger, I have no idea currently. The issue is that you try to reward 'Mechs which have a lot of missile hardpoints without making them too powerful compared to those which only have one or two (or three).

Hmmm.

What if you combined TT LRM spread mechanics with a reverse accuracy curve and SSRM sectional targeting? Basically, an LRM20 (for instance) fires 4 5-LRM "pods" that travel to the target, and each pod randomly selects a section of the Mech to smack in to. The accuracy of each pod, and its chance to select the CT, increases with the size of the launcher due to "integrated missile coordinator computers" or whatever.

Larger LRM launchers are inherently more dangerous, but pay with their ridiculous tonnage and crit requirements. Seems balanced to me, at least on its face.

EDIT: The listed is for indirect fire. Direct fire either goes straight for the CT, or spreads randomly between CT and ST's with heavy roll weight in favor of CT.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 19 August 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[zeves]

what if they keep all but lrm5s **** so there would be less lurming on purpose.

[TKSax]

Large Launchers have always been worse, did some testing in the mech lab and in private matches a while back. In the open, with LOS and Artemis with 15 and 20 some of the missiles always miss the target. With 10's and 5's all missiles hit the target.

[smokytehbear]

What is this? A thread discussing things actually objectively broken and unbalanced with the game and providing reasonable and effective solutions?

I must be in the wrong place, I was looking for "Russ doesn't like this playstyle therefore nerfs incoming" discussion. I'll see myself out.

[Alek Ituin]

smokytehbear, on 19 August 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

What is this? A thread discussing things actually objectively broken and unbalanced with the game and providing reasonable and effective solutions?

I must be in the wrong place, I was looking for "Russ doesn't like this playstyle therefore nerfs incoming" discussion. I'll see myself out.

I'm afraid we can't allow you to leave... You've seen too much.

[smokytehbear]

Alek Ituin, on 19 August 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

I'm afraid we can't allow you to leave... You've seen too much.

Ugh I have to fight my way out again?

Anyway, I agree with what's been posted in this thread btw. I still think all LRM 10+ are the most unusable and obsolete weapons/mechanics in the game right now. I'm not really sure why PGI doesn't seem to prioritize this a little harder instead of working on things at least half the community sees no real issue with to begin with. Russ probably just hasn't died to LRMs in a while, or tried to use them.

[Trauglodyte]

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

[Koniving]

process, on 19 August 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

so long as they don't turn into the old CT-seaking SSRMs.

Old CT-seeking SSRMs.



10 minutes of CT-seeking streaks...



Then PGI turned them into this.


And the hotfix, they became this.


So lets be honest, the old CT-chasing streak design.... would be as worthless as the current design.

Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2016 - 02:43 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Navid A1, on 19 August 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

No he is not kidding.
Sorry, but you are imagining things.
If what you said was true, I could bring a Griffin with 4 LRM5s (equivalent of a LRM20 with lrm5 level spread) and dominate the entire game... one-shotting mechs left ad right... and 4xLRM5 is 8 tons compared to a 10 ton LRM20. Read the comparison here
Do not forget that you are talking about a 10 ton weapon system here... with 6.33s cooldown. That kind of weapon should mess you up pretty bad.



Normalizing to something between 5 and 10 will solve the problem.
Remember, LRM5 has the least cool down and is the most efficient launcher in terms of tube per ton.

No, i'm not crazy.. I'm am just talking about tests i've seen run/done in testing grounds.. Yes it takes longer on moving mechs that can twist and such, but still right now 5's are better, as they high much tighter, and hit the CT almost exclusivly.. Just go to training and fire at an assault, again moving and size does change this, but still That should not be the case. IMO. But you also cant pile on 15 more missiles onto the CT either..

That doesn't mean 5's should be nerfed to oblivion, but if you loosen up the 5 spread some and tighten down the larger launcher spread,, Then recharge times, heat, energy can be adjusted to make the larger launchers better..

I mean can you imagine chaining 10's or 15's, 20's into the 5 circle,,, that would be way OP.. as it is 5's can really rip through someone, it's why many people use them. but it still takes 10-12 rounds or more, before they really add up if you are moving and twisting.. But if you were using those larger launchers, it would be 2-3 vollies and done.

they don't work well at higher levels, mainly because of other factors, not the damage persay, more it is a lot more peak and poke, and lock times and flight times are what cause them not to be effective, not the damage numbers when they hit, it's they just don't hit in the first place.

I'm a guy that loves LRM's, and would like to have them be better.. But i think they need a combination of things, and not just make 20's as tight as 5's as i really think that would just make um CT honing, which LRM's shouldn't be.

Because just stuffing 20 missiles into a 5 circle, is not going to help make um better at higher levels,.. and is just going to make the lower tier problems even worse..


Larger spreads with non-line of sight

tighter spreads, lower arc, with line of sight..

Perhaps the ability to slightly aim them using the reticual.. aka, hover over the left side, or right side, or ct, making the player have the ability to push them to one side of another.

[Sader325]

JC Daxion, on 19 August 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

No, i'm not crazy.. I'm am just talking about tests i've seen run/done in testing grounds.. Yes it takes longer on moving mechs that can twist and such, but still right now 5's are better, as they high much tighter, and hit the CT almost exclusivly.. Just go to training and fire at an assault, again moving and size does change this, but still That should not be the case. IMO. But you also cant pile on 15 more missiles onto the CT either..

That doesn't mean 5's should be nerfed to oblivion, but if you loosen up the 5 spread some and tighten down the larger launcher spread,, Then recharge times, heat, energy can be adjusted to make the larger launchers better..

I mean can you imagine chaining 10's or 15's, 20's into the 5 circle,,, that would be way OP.. as it is 5's can really rip through someone, it's why many people use them. but it still takes 10-12 rounds or more, before they really add up if you are moving and twisting.. But if you were using those larger launchers, it would be 2-3 vollies and done.

they don't work well at higher levels, mainly because of other factors, not the damage persay, more it is a lot more peak and poke, and lock times and flight times are what cause them not to be effective, not the damage numbers when they hit, it's they just don't hit in the first place.

I'm a guy that loves LRM's, and would like to have them be better.. But i think they need a combination of things, and not just make 20's as tight as 5's as i really think that would just make um CT honing, which LRM's shouldn't be.

Because just stuffing 20 missiles into a 5 circle, is not going to help make um better at higher levels,.. and is just going to make the lower tier problems even worse..


Larger spreads with non-line of sight

tighter spreads, lower arc, with line of sight..

Perhaps the ability to slightly aim them using the reticual.. aka, hover over the left side, or right side, or ct, making the player have the ability to push them to one side of another.

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.

Edited by Sader325, 19 August 2016 - 04:46 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Alek Ituin, on 19 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Hmmm.

What if you combined TT LRM spread mechanics with a reverse accuracy curve and SSRM sectional targeting? Basically, an LRM20 (for instance) fires 4 5-LRM "pods" that travel to the target, and each pod randomly selects a section of the Mech to smack in to. The accuracy of each pod, and its chance to select the CT, increases with the size of the launcher due to "integrated missile coordinator computers" or whatever.

Larger LRM launchers are inherently more dangerous, but pay with their ridiculous tonnage and crit requirements. Seems balanced to me, at least on its face.

Maybe that could work, or just simply normalise all LRMs' spread.

[Alek Ituin]

Hit the Deck, on 19 August 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Maybe that could work, or just simply normalise all LRMs' spread.

That's boring, and a bandaid IMO.

My solution (again IMO) bridges the gap players have so often lamented is missing between TT and real time MW/BT. It allows for some semblance of TT flavor to bleed through in to the real time experience, and it might improve LRM gameplay in the process.

I should point out though, my idea you quoted was meant for indirect fire, I just forgot to specify that.

[Trauglodyte]

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.

OR, you ignore needing to do that and just turn LRMs into a 1,000 meter ranged Streak system. We HAVE the technology, literally, in game. All PGI needs to do is change the coding.

[SamsungNinja]

Don't forget that a major downside to LRM5s, especially Clan LRM5s, is AMS. If you're chain firing IS LRM5s to control heat, it's not uncommon for a single AMS to eat your volleys. With 20s, most of it gets through.

Unless there are 1-2 ams kit foxes or nova-s pilots around, then you're boned.

[Gryphorim]

I dunno, I think one solution to LRMs would be to make them fly straight with a direct LoS lock-on, and target mech bones like SSRMs do currently, and use current mechanic for indirect fire.
Lock-on reticle would have to reflect the difference, perhaps staying gold or blue for indirect and turning red when LoS.

I also think firing smaller LRMs in larger numbers or at high RoF should have higher negatives than firing fewer, larger launchers.
Perhaps the targetting system can only reliably handle so many launchers firing at once, and at high RoF, or number of launchers, there is a progressively greater chance of losing target lock, or at least some of the launchers individually losing lock.
I'd say just roll it in with energy draw, but as demonstrated reload times are the limiting factor.

I have previously described a more in-depth system, but I won't go into that here.

[Madcap72]

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

[Navid A1]

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.

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.