29 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

The non-5 launchers, however, did get special treatment and yet you're not up in arms about that. You want the 5 to be pathetic, but you don't care if the others get significantly stronger than they were.

The others were clearly worse, a part of normalizing is bringing some stuff up while you bring other stuff down.

All of the other LRM launchers still have CDs higher than 4s, with LRM 20s above 5s. (CLRM 20s had a pretty crazy CD at 7.48s on the last PTS).

None of them were ever as spammy as the massed LRM troll builds.

Now, I'll admit I haven't had a chance to test on this PTS - but at one point I did test LRMs vs. each other and the tight spread on LRM 5s with their high CD was something I've always felt was a clear overperformer.

Unlike other launchers you could shred an enemy mech's torso with damage that was way too focused in comparison to other launchers.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Mech balance and weapon balance have a lot of overlap, especially when the weapons in question are highly dependent on a specific property of the mech they're mounted on (e.g. hardpoint count).

For example, global SRM buffs made the Griffin rise up to the top of the IS mediums lineup and also made the Oxide relevant.

I'm sorry but you are contradicting yourself from other discussions, for example where PPCs family CDs were nerfed because of the existince of the Dire Wolf.

The Griffin has very consistently been at the top of the brawl pile for medium mechs, and both of those mechs became heavily used because of their excellent quirks - it wasn't just the SRM buffs.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

If we're going to talk about cost, there's more than just raw tonnage. Tonnage is important, but not everything.

All missile and ballistic weapons have the cost of ammo, which increases both the tons and slots you need. For LRMs in particular, I'd estimate around 1 ton per LRM5, 2 tons per LRM10, ~2.5 tons per LRM15, and around 3 tons per LRM20 (assuming that you don't have big missile cooldown quirks).

Those ammo tonnage costs are as good or better than what most builds use for ballistics, except ballistics can't share their ammo.

Not even AC-5 family ballistics can share their ammo.

Yes there is loss due to spread, that's the price for the crutch mechanics.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Having a minimum range is a form of cost. This applies more to the IS than Clans, but having even just a little damage instead of zero damage within 180m is still a big deal.

They also generate some heat. Not all that much unless in big numbers (like our 6-LRM5 boogeyman), but still worth noting. Certainly much more than the UAC/5 example.

Lastly, even hardpoint counts are an opportunity cost most of the time. On battlemechs, each variant "usually" has the same total number of hardpoints. So for example, you might get a Jenner with 6E or one with 4E and 2M. In order to get enough missile hardpoints to boat, this often involves giving up energy and/or ballistic hardpoints. Some weapons are dependent on high hardpoint counts, like the Small Laser or Machine Gun.

Having a low velocity is a cost that means you're much less likely to hit people who are near cover.

Spread is a cost.

The lock-on mechanic itself is a bit of a cost since if you lose the lock, then the missiles will usually not hit the target.

Your listing a bunch of "costs" which are not really saying much, all weapon systems have a cost opportunity on a build.

The question is whether or not the costs are in line with the intended goal for the weapon's performance.

Not your goal for the weapon system, the intended goal for the weapon system.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Peeps and Gauss are both common and top-tier in both the live and PTS servers, so there is some actual context to their nerfs. It's not just all forms of long-range.

Being top tier doesn't mean a thing needs to be nerfed if it is in line with the intended cost opportunity for the weapon, having somethings be better than others is good for a game - this isn't communism, we don't need flat gameplay.

Flat gameplay is boring, and eventually kills many game's popularity.

Right now on live in public queue matches between good teams, you will see mixes of weapon systems. It's not all Gauss/PPCs or AC5/PPCs. You will see all of those represented, plus lasers and yes even brawler rush loadouts.

The meta is relatively healthy right now with multiple options for top tier loadouts.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

On the topic of LRM exemption. the 10/15/20 did just get exempted as I have to keep saying. They didn't just get exempted either, they got buffed.

If you want to argue for them to be nerfed back, be my guest and make a thread proposing it.

As much as I dislike LRMs due to their mechanics, even I thought some of the CDs nerfs from the last PTS were way too heavy handed on the larger launchers that barely get used in the first place.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

The derpy lock-on mechanic also requires face time unless somebody either spots or UAV's for you.

Good. They should remain derpy potato tier weapons as long as a UAV or someone else spotting for you means you can fire at targets while hiding.

FupDup, on 14 September 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

At the end of the day I know not to ask for the LRM5 to have its stats stronger than the current live server before any mechanics are changed. What I really want here is to simply not nerf them because they're not a problem right now. In other words, just leave them as-is for the time being.

I think that's our core disagreement, I've always felt they were out of line vs. the larger launchers.

Edited by Ultimax, 15 September 2016 - 05:00 AM.

[davoodoo]

You dont need to nerf lrm5 to normalize lrms...

You put all their cooldowns on 4s, you put all of their spread on 3.0 and they are normalized.

[FupDup]

I removed/consolidated a few individual quote replies that I didn't feel were necessary...

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

I'm sorry but you are contradicting yourself from other discussions, for example where PPCs family CDs were nerfed because of the existince of the Dire Wolf.

The Griffin has very consistently been at the top of the brawl pile for medium mechs, and both of those mechs became heavily used because of their excellent quirks - it wasn't just the SRM buffs.

For the Whale example, it was a case of PGI themselves not understanding the difference between mech and weapon balance. I said that the two had overlap, which still means that differences can/do exist.

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

Those ammo tonnage costs are as good or better than what most builds use for ballistics, except ballistics can't share their ammo.

Not even AC-5 family ballistics can share their ammo.

For ammo sharing to be a thing, that requires you to mix different launchers together. At least in my experience, most of the Lurm mechs I've seen or used tend to equip just one launcher type. Cooldown synergy etc.

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

Being top tier doesn't mean a thing needs to be nerfed if it is in line with the intended cost opportunity for the weapon, having somethings be better than others is good for a game - this isn't communism, we don't need flat gameplay.

Flat gameplay is boring, and eventually kills many game's popularity.

Right now on live in public queue matches between good teams, you will see mixes of weapon systems. It's not all Gauss/PPCs or AC5/PPCs. You will see all of those represented, plus lasers and yes even brawler rush loadouts.

The meta is relatively healthy right now with multiple options for top tier loadouts.

Yeah, I get that. I was meaning to focus on the PTS where a lot of the competing builds have been removed from the picture thanks to both Energy Draw and/or some of the various nerfs.

Whether or not we think the nerfs were justified, the ones regarding PPCs and such can be at least *somewhat* rationalized versus the nerfing of something like the IS Large Laser (seriously what the fudge).

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

If you want to argue for them to be nerfed back, be my guest and make a thread proposing it.

As much as I dislike LRMs due to their mechanics, even I thought some of the CDs nerfs from the last PTS were way too heavy handed on the larger launchers that barely get used in the first place.

On that note, I didn't really like most of the CD nerfs to begin with. Only a few weapons make sense for it, certainly not things like the AC/2 or the supremely giganerfed AC/5 (which has lower DPS than the AC/2 in the PTS right now).

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

Good. They should remain derpy potato tier weapons as long as a UAV or someone else spotting for you means you can fire at targets while hiding.

What I'm trying to say is that they already are derpy spud guns, they just aren't as derpy as the LRM20. Being derpy doesn't have to mean being smacked down the hand of The Nerfinator™. There's derp, and then there's overkill derp.

Ultimax, on 15 September 2016 - 04:56 AM, said:

...
The others were clearly worse, a part of normalizing is bringing some stuff up while you bring other stuff down.

All of the other LRM launchers still have CDs higher than 4s, with LRM 20s above 5s. (CLRM 20s had a pretty crazy CD at 7.48s on the last PTS).

None of them were ever as spammy as the massed LRM troll builds.

Now, I'll admit I haven't had a chance to test on this PTS - but at one point I did test LRMs vs. each other and the tight spread on LRM 5s with their high CD was something I've always felt was a clear overperformer.

Unlike other launchers you could shred an enemy mech's torso with damage that was way too focused in comparison to other launchers.
...

...
Your listing a bunch of "costs" which are not really saying much, all weapon systems have a cost opportunity on a build.

The question is whether or not the costs are in line with the intended goal for the weapon's performance.

Not your goal for the weapon system, the intended goal for the weapon system.
...

I think that's our core disagreement, I've always felt they were out of line vs. the larger launchers.

They were truly only out of line when compared to the '20, in which case the '10 and '15 were also out of line. The '20 has just been historically garbage by its own merits when compared to almost anything (IDK how much PTS4 improved it, didn't test that), that's not a sin of the '5 or others.

Using live server as the baseline, this is what I think should happen with Lurms:

LRM5: Do nothing, because it already is the low-tier troll weapon being spoke of.

LRM10: Also do nothing. Sure, it has a bit more spread and cooldown than the '5, but it also packs much more punch per hardpoint. It can therefore be useful on a much wider variety of mechs and builds (don't need as many hardpoints). It's the sweet spot between the 5 and 15. Packing 4 LRM5 on a heavy or assault is wimply, but 4 LRM10 can actually be a threat (as far as LRMs go).

LRM15: Some small nudge buffs. It already has a bit of niche use if you've got a lot of weight (e.g. Warhawk) or only 2 hardpoints on a heavy/assault. It's not that bad...at least as far as the LRM family goes.

LRM20: This is the one that should get significant changes, since a single LRM15 is superior to a single '20 in the live server.

Pipe Dream: Actually rework the lock-on mechanics for both Lurms and Streaks.

Edited by FupDup, 15 September 2016 - 11:26 AM.

[Moira]

If there is bad there is some good. Just hold up there for moment and ill try to explain this.
((Im drinking my morning coffee here, so if my math is bit off dont murder me with calculus))

LRM5's aint out of the game, but I can see that IS LRM5 are unless there is some upcoming super-tweaks to perks. Looking this at medium mechs viewpoint 3x LRM5 had its use to harass and poke from range, but with increased CD Im starting to feel that one cant justified unless one going to dig deep and use many module slots to improve just one aspect of mech combat. And replacing LRM5's with LRM10's(or bigger) simply isnt viable due lack critical slots.
* Im using medium mechs here since they are getting shafted the most in LRM use.

Heavy mechs that are capable carrying 3-9 missile slots. This starts to look interesting since before/live you have/had to macro-manage(mouses gaming pads with timing) to get the most out of the 6+ missile slots. I havent been at PTS after this change but heading there soonish after this post, but Im starting to see a "formula" forming here that goes somewhat like this: fire LRM5,LRM5,LRM10,LRM10,LRM5,LRM10((this is macro so you get same macro to interfer with its own firing cycle after second or third roation. And its inteded so)). This might not be the best possible firing sequence(did I type that right) but has potential depending on mechs perks to have the old 6x LRM5 effect constantly firing missiles effect.

One and only mech that actually gains from this change is the 9missile slotted Archer that had me going rather insane to weave-macro best ideal LRM5,LRM10,LRM15 combo and right order to get the maxed out potential without killing myself on heat.

I do agree that increasing LRM5 CD would help in case of 6x LRM5 boating, but at the same time increasing the spread might just cause 6x Clan LRM5's to be viable(take that with a grain of salt) brawling weapon since now you can get alot more hits into side torsos and head than before... this last bit is completely just my thoughts and its coming from sleep deprevated mind.

Over all, increasing the spread of LRM5 is band aid for one problem, but seems to ruin alot fun little mechs to out right.

Edited by Moira, 16 September 2016 - 12:01 AM.

[Robinson Crusher]

I certainly agree with earlier comments that this is about viability of the LRM weapon systems, and disagree with the portrayal of these systems as inherently "unfair".

LRMs make the game interesting by introducing other tactics than point and shoot. They also make the game interesting in that one must think about how to defend from them. Some people don't want to think about how to defend from indirect fire, or surrender tonnage to AMS, so complain. I believe LRMs add to the game because they require defensive skill as well as both offensive and defensive thought. They also provide new players, and people with lower end computers, a chance to contribute.

LRMs are an important part of keeping this game the "thinking man's shooter". I enjoy them even when the enemy has them and I don't. They need to be viable across all levels. Since they need less skill to use than to defend against this should be taken into account, but IMO that has already been done.

IS-LRM5 should stay as it is in the current game and the other launchers balanced from that with an eye to keeping low spread associated with small launcher size.

[Sader325]

Thread still relevant, Still needs to be fixed.

[Arkroma]

Robinson Crusher, on 16 September 2016 - 02:31 AM, said:

I certainly agree with earlier comments that this is about viability of the LRM weapon systems, and disagree with the portrayal of these systems as inherently "unfair".

Games are about unfair. I am by no means bashing LRMs because it's unfair. Think about Starcraft where you have air units and stealth units. Or Magic The Gathering where you have unblock-able/flying creatures. Mechanically unfair is part of game designing---imagine a MTG where you only have 2/2 creatures without any text on them.

Being mechanically unfair however requires drawback. Air units are often expensive and/or vulnerable to anti-air attack. Flying/unblockable creatures are weaker in terms of sheer attack/hitpoints. You get the picture.

Now the problem is, though, there is just no way to balance LRMs to the point that it's useful across all skill levels, if we keep LRM's current lock-on system. There was a MWOWC match recently where 9BTC (I think?) brought a LRM Treb into play agaisnt ISRC. He did 14 damage.

Sader325, on 26 September 2016 - 07:49 AM, said:

Thread still relevant, Still needs to be fixed.

The current lock-on system needs to be ditched, burned and buried, not necessary in that order.

[Miles McQuiston]

Recycle time for all the launchers needs to be the same. Heat should be the controlling aspect of LRM use. I think universal cool down of 3.5-4 seconds would work. Having multiple missile slots just lets you capitalize on the tonnage savings of 5s over 20s. Normalize the spread for all launcher types. Hence tubes are tubes. Each tube generates the same heat whether it is from a 5 or a 20. Firing an LRM 20 - LRM30 should be heat neutral with 10 DHS anything more and you should be building heat. I would boost the Artemis effects in terms of spread to really help out. Hence 4xALRM5 costs more tons than 1xALRM20. Thus some chassis favor LRM some favor ALRM and Artemis can play a significant role in effectiveness. Just FYI bigger launchers perform better against AMS so they have an advantage there as well.

For those that argue that cool down is higher on PPC and Gauss on the PTS well you have the option of firing and retreating to cover long before the LRMs arrive even if the LRM boat has a spotter. If you are sniping from open terrain that is your problem.

Fact is LRMs scatter damage, miss due to locks being dropped, get annihilated by AMS, can't lock ECM carriers without additional tools. LRM 5 spam is a joke to 2AMS systems, and gets thinned pretty well by 1AMS with overload.

Narc length of time should be reduced, but projectile velocity increased. This would make narcing easier on faster targets but the effects less devastating. I would also up the narc count of each ton of ammo to make it such that packing a launcher and one ton of ammo is sufficient.

Adjustments to LRMs would be as simple as the tweaking their recycle time. I will still use 5s and 10s and 15s and 20s.

My last point is everyone should bring AMS.... Everyone..... Drop a heat sink or an engine size and put it on. Worse case you help your team, best case everyone's AMS cuts the missile spam to a light drizzle and you can just walk in and finish them.

[Aesthetech]

Meh. 5's are still the best LRM's per hardpoint, with 2 doing slightly more DPS than 10s with the same heat per 10 missiles fired for 1 less ton spent on the weapon system (or the same tonnage if Artemis is used).

Mind you, this isn't a good thing--they nerfed the only decent LRM rack to the level of the barely usable one while giving largely ineffectual buffs to the other two. LRM15s and 20s are still worthless.

Firstly: Restore LRM5s to where they were. They were in a decent spot for what's basically a utility/small support weapon. There was 0 reason to nerf them except for horribly misinterpreting the community's feedback.

LRM5' in live: 2/3t 1.54 DPS 0.62HPS

LRM10's: Decrease CD to 3.35s and heat to 3 per shot. Now at 5/6t, 2.99 DPS, 0.85 HPS. This means without Artemis 2 5's do slightly more DPS at 4 tons compared to LRM10s at 5 tons, at the cost of less efficient HPS. LRM10s are now mildly the superior choice with Artemis (same DPS/t, better heat efficiency).
LRM15's: Decrease CD to 3.85s and heat to 4 per shot. Now at 7/8t, 3.9 DPS, 1.04 HPS. This puts 10's and 15's on roughly equal footing without Artemis (LRM15's slightly more heat efficient) and better with Artemis.

LRM20's: Reduce CD to 3.8s and heat to 5 per shot. Now at 10/11t, 5.26 DPS, 1.31 HPS. 15's slightly better DPS in cost without artemis and 20's preferable with.


Now, DPS per ton and heat for each weapon:

LRM5's: 0.77 / 0.51 DPSt -- 0.4 HPS per DPS
LRM10's: 0.6 / 0.5 DPSt -- 0.29 HPS per DPS
LRM15's: 0.56 / 0.485 DPSt -- 0.26 HPS per DPS
LRM20's: 0.53 / 0.485 DPSt -- 0.25 HPS per DPS


Now equalize spread between all the LRMs when artemis is in use. The larger weapons are now superior performers with artemis with the non-artemis situation being a DPS vs HPS tradeoff.

The end result is that the smaller launchers, particularly 5s, are more preferable in smaller tonnage/light applications, and the larger launchers are more desirable in limited hardpoints and larger scale/higher total heat applications, as opposed to the blanket "5s are better and maaaaybe 10s with artemis in high tonnage situations" that we have now.

Then let's test with these values. If LRM's prove to be overpowered when the launchers are closely balanced to each other (specifically, to the current live server balance/power level of 5's which are currently not regarded as OP), THEN we nerf all LRM's equally. However, I don't think we'll run into an issue with this, as the combination of poor DPS per ton along with the ED DPS and alpha limits should keep this in check.

Math, people.

[El Bandito]

Aposiopesis, on 26 September 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

Meh. 5's are still the best LRM's per hardpoint, with 2 doing slightly more DPS than 10s with the same heat per 10 missiles fired for 1 less ton spent on the weapon system (or the same tonnage if Artemis is used).

Mind you, this isn't a good thing--they nerfed the only decent LRM rack to the level of the barely usable one while giving largely ineffectual buffs to the other two. LRM15s and 20s are still worthless.

Firstly: Restore LRM5s to where they were. They were in a decent spot for what's basically a utility/small support weapon. There was 0 reason to nerf them except for horribly misinterpreting the community's feedback.

--

Exactly. LRM5 should be left alone, and buff the other launchers.