22 replies to this topic

[Trauglodyte]

I'm writing this in response to Andi's "LRM Spread" topic (http://mwomercs.com/...ad-please-vote/) - I wanted to respond but didn't want it to get lost in the mass.

Streaks got adjusted something like 2-3 years ago to no longer focus on the torsos. It was problematic when used in bunches and, mostly notably, because of the then unknown SRM splash issue. The change was made so that they simply targeted individual locations or, as PGI calls them, "bones". This ended up making them less deadly and, in essence, neutered them because, at the time, we didn't have Clans so a bunch of Streak 2s didn't really inflict fear on anyone other than Light drivers (pre-quirks).

Now, as we all know, LRMs are a pretty bad weapon platform for a myriad of reasons. But, the biggest reason is the spread. LRM5s bunch in a tighter cluster with each following wrack having a much larger spread, as it is with SRMs. The problem that exists is that the LRM5 bunching is so much more noticeable that it renders the larger wracks poor or even obsolete. People have been proposing tighter clustering but it seems like all of this is a moot argument when we have a solution in game already. TARGET THE BONES!

By changing to the bones system, the following is accomplished:

• Damage application by guided weapons is balanced across all platforms and against all target sizes and types
  
• It makes for easier application of the coding and tt removes the necessity of trying to figure out the best spread values for 4 different wracks
  
• By applying the bone code, you now present a choice to the user: do they go with a faster firing weapon and apply the tonnage elsewhere or do they go with something heavier that has a larger opportunity cost

It seems elegant to me and simple. LRMs would be no better against the largest mech and no worse against the smallest and fastest mech. LRMs would be balanced and would then only need a change to flight arc code. But, that last part is a whole 'nother topic.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I've been advocating something like this ever since the SSRM change first went through.

Have LRMs group in sets of 5, which then lock onto a particular mech "bone" like SSRMs do. This follows the TT rules for grouping LRM damage, while also evening out the performance of the different launcher sizes.

I also advocate flat trajectories for LoS attacks and high ballistic trajectories for indirect ones, preferably with the added option of true bombardment fire via the Battlegrid to saturate an area if there is no current intel or if you prefer to do light damage over a large area, say for area denial.

[El Bandito]

Trauglodyte, on 25 August 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

LRMs would be balanced and would then only need a change to flight arc code.

Nah bro. Should LRM mechanism be changed to targetting individual bones, then mere flight change coding alone will not save it from never being used again. As is, LRMs are never good idea to be used on Light enemy mechs anyway due to their speed in getting to cover. Heavies and Assaults are always prime LRM targets, as long as the pilot is competent.

IMO, should LRMs switch to bone targeting, then velocity buff and ammo buff (so many shots will be wasted on limbs) are also needed, at the least.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 August 2016 - 06:05 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

El Bandito, on 25 August 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

Nah bro. Should LRM mechanism be changed to targetting individual bones, then mere flight change coding alone will not save it from never being used again. As is, LRMs are never good idea to be used on Light enemy mechs anyway due to their speed in getting to cover. Heavies and Assaults are always prime LRM targets, as long as the pilot is competent.

IMO, should LRMs switch to bone targeting, then velocity buff and ammo buff (so many shots will be wasted on limbs) are also needed, at the least.

A velocity buff would be a good thing for them, certainly. I'm not sure they'd need an ammo buff (at least, any more than they already have), given that anything bigger than an LRM5 would be significantly more accurate than they currently are. Still, that'd be something for the post-change data to illuminate.

[El Bandito]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 25 August 2016 - 06:09 PM, said:

A velocity buff would be a good thing for them, certainly. I'm not sure they'd need an ammo buff (at least, any more than they already have), given that anything bigger than an LRM5 would be significantly more accurate than they currently are. Still, that'd be something for the post-change data to illuminate.

Effective torso damage is what I care about, not overall damage. I am not convinced that reducing LRM spread to LRM5 level instead and give stagger fire to larger launchers is not a better idea.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 August 2016 - 06:27 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

El Bandito, on 25 August 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

Effective torso damage is what I care about, not overall damage. I am not convinced that reducing LRM spread to LRM5 level instead and give stagger fire to larger launchers is not a better idea.

I'd just like to see them both implemented for a short while so that people can compare it all in a real gameplay environment. Until then, theorycrafting can only get you so far, and you wind up with a lot of agree-to-disagree.

[Cyborne Elemental]

90% of LRM never ever hit a moving light anyway, probably due to crappy netcode like everything else, once in a while I see legs take a tiny bit of damage, but for the most part Lights are mostly immune to LRM's.

[Trauglodyte]

El Bandito, on 25 August 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

Effective torso damage is what I care about, not overall damage. I am not convinced that reducing LRM spread to LRM5 level instead and give stagger fire to larger launchers is not a better idea.

You don't remember the bone code, do you? Bone coding for streaks prioritize torsos over arms and legs. The problem with LRM5s versus the other racks is that all 5 missiles hit with LRM5s where as there are misses with the other three wracks. In order to balance them, you don't need to tighten the spread. You need to normalize the damage potential.

[Novakaine]

El Bandito, on 25 August 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

Nah bro. Should LRM mechanism be changed to targetting individual bones, then mere flight change coding alone will not save it from never being used again. As is, LRMs are never good idea to be used on Light enemy mechs anyway due to their speed in getting to cover. Heavies and Assaults are always prime LRM targets, as long as the pilot is competent.

IMO, should LRMs switch to bone targeting, then velocity buff and ammo buff (so many shots will be wasted on limbs) are also needed, at the least.

Aw Bandito I love lurmin lights.
So satisfying!
However they could leave all as is and buff the damage output.
Giving the whine boys time to get cover as usual, but punishing the tactically stupid.

[Sader325]

Streaks are the worst weapon in this game.

You don't get it. LRMs are better than streaks, not worse. Spreading the damage across the whole mech is BAD.

[Lightfoot]

Absolutely no.

The biggest failure of MWO was to take the the route of dummy ssrms rather than make them into a skill system based on actual missiles.

Basically when you fire MWO's SSRMs you are not firing missiles whatever the animation shows. You are rolling dice. What you should actually see is something more like the Supply Cache animation spin above the mech and stop in a box stating any hits in it. Your angle and the angle of the target have no relevance to what mech sections get hit. Making LRMs into this quick-fix failure is not the way a Simulation should take.

The fix for SSRMs is to make them track like missiles, but with a large, wide turning radius so they can be easily dodged by Light mechs and not so easily dodged by Assaults. SSRMs could then target the mech's central mass, Light mech pilots could be mostly immune if they pay attention, which they would, Assaults would not be immune as they are now, and players using SSRMs would have a Skill to learn. This system worked perfectly in MW3, a multiplayer game plagued by Lag for direct-fire weapons, but even so SSRMs were not the most used weapon, few would boat them. But they were a Skill players could study and learn!

MWO is supposed to be a Mech-Sim, so the weapons should simulate real weapons not fuzzy dice.

[A Man In A Can]

Interesting but expected proposal for Clan Streak LRMs to operate in the same way as all other Streak weaponry does in MWO. A truly fire and forget LRM would absolutely need some kind of mechanic to balance their ability to home on the enemy without any further input from the firer, and the home in on the bones aspect would allow fast-moving, lightly-armored mechs to maybe have a chance to survive from massed Streak LRMs firing from anywhere in a 1km radius. I look forward to their introduction as an alternative to Clan ATMs not being possible.

Meanwhile, your proposal for semi-guided ranged munitions is a no-show. Try again.

[Tyler Valentine]

LRMs require no face time and no aim. They shouldn't do nearly as much damage as other weapon systems that do.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

OP suggestion seems like a nerf to LRMs more than anything else. SSRMs are good against lights and LRMs work best against slow assaults.

If you wanted to even out their damage across classes you should probably just increase their velocity and turn rates so they can hit things across the board better. Maybe if they target bones get them to only target torsos so they don't spread badly but really I'd just recommend they do the simple thing which is change that one spread modifier number for the LRMs that aren't an LRM10.

Tyler Valentine, on 26 August 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

LRMs require no face time and no aim. They shouldn't do nearly as much damage as other weapon systems that do.

LRM's also are the slowest moving projectiles, have a ballistic trajectory, rely heavily on being able to target enemies, spread worse than LBX, and have a half ton piece of equipment dedicated to reducing their damage further to the point that if everyone on one team actually just brought one and stayed together they'd be nearly immune to LRMs.

LRMs take a suprising amount of knowledge to actually use decently and a bit of skill to really make them shine. I've seen LRM boats before who had aim so bad they couldn't even hold a lock and I've seen others who can dumbfire and be hitting you. Other times you'll see a good boat in a bad position be LRMing targets far away while shooting an attacker inside of his LRM range with his backup weaponry. Only time an LRM boat with no aim and no facetime but the knowledge to press r on a target some other teammate pressed r on will be of any use is if the player he is shooting at was pretty bad anyway.

[Herodes]

Tyler Valentine, on 26 August 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

LRMs require no face time and no aim. They shouldn't do nearly as much damage as other weapon systems that do.

LRMs do require face time or you lose lock and miss your shot. They are slow. Of course they can be fired indirectly. But then the Lrm Boat uses a teammates face time which is just as problematic.
I think LRMs are an interesting weapon system that does need some tweaking but offers some nice alternatives to the usual meta builds.

LRMs require more face time than dakka. And they are not focussed. They have hard counters. They have numerous disadvantages.

Why do you want one of the least dangerous weapons nerfed? If you have a problem with LRMs ... it is not the LRMs fault.

[El Bandito]

Tyler Valentine, on 26 August 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

LRMs require no face time and no aim. They shouldn't do nearly as much damage as other weapon systems that do.

Hah! LRM boats who never show their faces are the weakest of the bunch. They are more of a hindrance to the team than boon. Any decent Lurmer would be sharing armor with the team.

Current LRMs, aside from massed LRM5s, are a joke. They need reworks to make them as good as DF weapons in terms of viability.

[Widowmaker1981]

OMG lol. No. Just ... no.

Streak targeting is basically autohit due to the tracking strength (and without that it wouldnt work, in order to always hit the 'bone' it targets it needs very very high tracking strength). This change would make LRMs absurdly good vs lights and mediums (would basically remove lights from the game) and make them 100% totally useless against heavies and assaults..

[TLBFestus]

In a straight forward attempt to give one of the lore purists in the forums an aneurysm, I propose a complete change from how things currently work. Use the LRM 5 spread but have missles fire in groups of fire (rapid stagger fire from the launcher) AND let the player decide how many volleys to fire.

In other words, everyone uses the same sized launcher but they can set it for 1, 2, 3, or 4 volleys. Extra weight and size of the launcher can be explained by the necessity to fit in more ammo!








(Again.....just trying to stir the pot....it's a stupid idea)

Edited by TLBFestus, 26 August 2016 - 07:34 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Tyler Valentine, on 26 August 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

LRMs require no face time and no aim. They shouldn't do nearly as much damage as other weapon systems that do.

Actually the secret to good LRM damage is to get into a face-off with the target even with no Artemis. LRMs hitting an arm or arm stub do very low damage and the damage is spread. Go face to face and the LRMs hit the CT, unless the target torso twists, which the target has plenty of time to do. LRM missile boats may do a lot of damage but are nullified at short range where any weapon beats them and Light mechs excel at this mission.

See how much mech pilot skill is involved for both players in an LRM exchange? That is what you want from a Mech-Sim. Players likely start off not sure how to proceed with LRMs and vs LRMs, but once you learn you see the challenge as being good game depth.

[FupDup]

Both lock-on missile types really should have their base mechanics reworked to make them less prone to "binary syndrome," where they either overperform or underperform based on their specific stats and/or the enemy team in question.