307 replies to this topic

[General Solo]

Catten Hart, on 16 January 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

Whew lad. Newbies can figure stuff out too, regardless of account age. For all you know he/she could've watched people play for weeks or months before joining the game, or is a quick learner. Try to be more inviting instead of fixating on account age like some elitist. You've had an account since 2012, you should know better.

Anyways, yeah. I'm fine with LRM boats for the most part now, but I still end up being the guy who really wants to type out sour, angry things if I see more than three clusters of LRM-5s on the horizon.

I aint trying to be eliteish

My response to that dude was because of he's poor and biased attitude to others who respond to his posts

Not very constructive and full of insults

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 09:51 PM, said:

This should be my last post in this thread and you may consider yourself a "winner". Unless something changes of course.
........
Here we go again. Looks like you aren't even trying to understand why i suggested this in the first place. On the contruary, i DO understand why you did not want that to happen (aside from the ususal "status quo" stuff). And yet you latch onto it like it's the end of the world while ignoring the big picture.
..................

Van Tuz, on 14 January 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

How is that makes any of my math and/or arguments any less valid? I have that thing called "brain" to perform that thing called "analysis". I think that your thing called "brain" can cough up a better and more constructive thing called "counter-argument" than "u'rn00b". Try it.

I can be an a whole too.

Being new ain't an excuse


Every thing he talked about can be countered, people tried to tell him this and he responds with tude.

No Thanks

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 January 2017 - 06:20 PM.

[Van Tuz]

OZHomerOZ, on 16 January 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

I don't have duckling syndrome as I was wearing a tinfoil hat at the time of the guass ppc incident and thus have full recollection of the fact your account is less than two weeks old.

This account was created in 2012. Your argument is invalid.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I thought we were conversing, and most of that statement was saying I agree with you. Or, is that not accepted?

Well.. let say it was unclear. It's like i was suggesting to bring Arrow IV Homing missile and you were explaining why it's not a good idea. No, i would like to see just cluster missiles.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

You suggest that half the ammo count per LRMs would balance them out, I don't see how.
...
Then, you make a suggestion to AMS...Without this change, the halved ammo counts doesn't work (and still likely wouldn't, which is my remark).
...
THEN, you also need targeting to change
...
So, basically, I have to look at every change being created to justify every other change.

These suggestions weren't intended as "first-then-then". They are intended to be implenmented at the same time and work in combination. I see now why you have put so much pressure on the ammo density but very little on other two.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Your suggestion is outlandish. It requires a complete overhaul and change of the system. Instead of working within the system we currently have, and making some small suggestions or additions to it, you seem to just want to completely change it all and "it will work".

- Targeting changes: Not sure exactly what you wish changed here, but recall that it still needs to try and be fair to all users, those of LRMs and those who are not using LRMs. (We don't want LRMs to suddenly become king damage dealers either.)
- AMS: Okay. This one could work. I just can't grasp how it will become more effective when even more missiles are tossed against it. It's a 0.5 ton equipment (with 1 ton ammo). It shouldn't become too effective for it's tonnage investment.
...
but I suspect it would only cause LRM5 boated even more than we currently have.
- LRM ammo count per ton: You wish to half the damage potential per ton of ammo for LRMs. A system that is already considered rather ammo starved. .. Not unless you drastically alter the behavior of LRMs to make them even more accurate and effective

Actually the changes that i have suggested may have not as drastic of an impact on player's perception as you may think.
-Targeting changes: The whole process does not changes at all from the player's perspective. All the modules and mechanics are intended to work as before. The only difference is that LRM can keep their own, separate lock on a mech with radar deprivation even after it has vanished from players' view and therefore radar deprivation stops affecting missile tracking. It stops being an anti-LRM tool without losing all other benefits. This is necessary because this module brings a huge disparity on how LRM works in T1 and in T5. I guess other weapons would also stopped being effective against veterans if there was a module that intentionally or not halved incoming damage.
-AMS. Yes, it shouldn't be too effective but it shouldn't be a harmless firecracker pod either. LRM is a global weapon, so it needs a global countermeasure. It should have some effect even when there's 60 "presents" sent from across the map by multiple missile boats. It should be worth the investement especially if you had to remove a weapon or some armor to squeese it in a light mech. Besides, a player dows not know how many missiles were sent for him - 5 or 10, so the reduced effectiveness against LRM5 won't be noted as much as increased effectiveness against missile rain.
- LRM ammo count per ton: Not necessary "half". It might be 65, 68 or 80%. (numbers are arbitrary). Besides, LRM is a weapon that can strike without retaliation, so having less potential damage per ton is not that "unfair". It's a measure to keep LRM-boats in check. Remember that brawlers can't drop armor and pick more ammo hoping to deal more damage that way.
I'm not even clinging to this particular change and it can be skipped if LRM shall not become too powerful or a better alternative on how to limit LRM impact on gameplay is suggested.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I do have suggestions.

Going forward i see that you have suggestions on how to improve LRM but what i was asking primarily is a suggestion on how to keep LRM in check if they start to be too powerful instead of reducing ammo density.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I kinda would like to see more even spread across all the missiles,

You mean something like the picture on the page 6 of this thread? That's a very good rebalance and one i can get behind even in isolation.

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I would honestly kinda like to see LRMs also target (in clumps of 5) a specific component and maybe remove spread completely. They would then act very similar to how streak SRMs currently operate as far as how they hit a mech. And grouping them in bunches of 5 missiles would actually follow lore and the base TT rules this game is founded on. But, more than likely, spread is more effective for the desired weapon effective in this style of a game, when compared to TT.

Spread is much more tricky to balance than you may think it is. I see that a lot in different games and game discussions. People think that 2x spread is 2x worse but it's not. It's Pi*R² so 2x spread means 4x area, 3x spread means 9x area. The second thing you should be aware of is the target's cross-section. I don't have exact numbers but i have a feeling that mech's cross-section grows faster than its armor points with the weight class increase. So an assault mech can take 5x more damage from a spread-based weapon compared to light mech while having only 3x more armor. That's why it is better to have missiles home in on specific parts rather than being a spreadshot weapon.

Edited by Van Tuz, 17 January 2017 - 07:16 AM.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 16 January 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

By all means, but you may have to leave most of my novels out of that post. Otherwise, it may turn into a whole trilogy...
(I need to learn to type smaller posts. )

Overall, it's the reason behind the action that can determine if it really is a greifing action or not. Someone who always fights without a lock may just not care, be a bad team player, or may not know what it is he's missing out on. On the other hand, someone who normally always gets locks, but doesn't for a match (appearing to be less skilled than they are) just because they know there are LRM users on their team is doing an intentional action against them (or rather, is not playing "as they normally would" in that specific match.)

The one being griefed doesn't even need to know that they are being griefed for it to still be griefing. It's all about the intent behind the actions that can make a difference. I mean, an accidental team fire event, or even team kill in a heated brawl, isn't a form of griefing. Going out of your way to get that TK, or intentionally (while in that heated brawl) hitting that teammate is griefing (even if it can't be discerned between if it was intentional or not by the now dead teammate).

(And I'll leave this here before I create another novel for you... )

Oh, and if you do make the topic, link me. I don't mind debating it. It is an interesting topic, because it's all based on perspective and how one defines the terms. (It's very subjective to interpretation.)

I actually like that you take the time to type out well thought out points. It at least makes me think and I am always open to the possibility of being wrong or change. I consider it a strength.

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

This account was created in 2012. Your argument is invalid.

Thing is here, your account may have been created in 2012, but your forum profile says you've been here since 1/5/17. This must mean that you have never logged onto the forums directly until this year, about 2-3 weeks ago. The forum doesn't recognize you until you've logged onto it, and the first time you do it says that is your official join date.

Hence the confusion (and why I never really look at those dates too often). Still, none of us know when you actually did join, and all we have is either your word or your forum profile...

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Well.. let say it was unclear. It's like i was suggesting to bring Arrow IV Homing missile and you were explaining why it's not a good idea. No, i would like to see just cluster missiles.

Most of what I was saying there was "how could they introduce it into the game". Nothing more, but that is probably what lead to the confusion.

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

These suggestions weren't intended as "first-then-then". They are intended to be implenmented at the same time and work in combination. I see now why you have put so much pressure on the ammo density but very little on other two.

I didn't write it as a "first-then-then". I wrote it as a "this-this-and this too", meaning at the same time. I don't find the proposal complete, and I don't see it working as a whole, or as separate pieces so far (besides maybe the AMS as a possibility, but I think it would need more consideration to how it might affect the game overall). Seen as you mention your process bellow, I'll address it there, instead of here.

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Actually the changes that i have suggested may have not as drastic of an impact on player's perception as you may think.
-Targeting changes: The whole process does not changes at all from the player's perspective. All the modules and mechanics are intended to work as before. The only difference is that LRM can keep their own, separate lock on a mech with radar deprivation even after it has vanished from players' view and therefore radar deprivation stops affecting missile tracking. It stops being an anti-LRM tool without losing all other benefits. This is necessary because this module brings a huge disparity on how LRM works in T1 and in T5. I guess other weapons would also stopped being effective against veterans if there was a module that intentionally or not halved incoming damage.
-AMS. Yes, it shouldn't be too effective but it shouldn't be a harmless firecracker pod either. LRM is a global weapon, so it needs a global countermeasure. It should have some effect even when there's 60 "presents" sent from across the map by multiple missile boats. It should be worth the investement especially if you had to remove a weapon or some armor to squeese it in a light mech. Besides, a player dows not know how many missiles were sent for him - 5 or 10, so the reduced effectiveness against LRM5 won't be noted as much as increased effectiveness against missile rain.
- LRM ammo count per ton: Not necessary "half". It might be 65, 68 or 80%. (numbers are arbitrary). Besides, LRM is a weapon that can strike without retaliation, so having less potential damage per ton is not that "unfair". It's a measure to keep LRM-boats in check. Remember that brawlers can't drop armor and pick more ammo hoping to deal more damage that way.
I'm not even clinging to this particular change and it can be skipped if LRM shall not become too powerful or a better alternative on how to limit LRM impact on gameplay is suggested.

- I don't see how missiles could continue to be locked (under any of the currently running mechanics or concepts) without the target being locked as well. Or are you suggesting that missiles that can lock start to become "fire and forget" to some extent? If this is the case, it removes more skills LRM users actually do use, and will move it closer to a skill-less weapon, as so many are so quick to already call them. (Mind, this is an "if this is your concept".)
- Presume that any change will be announced. And I might make mention that anytime there has ever been an announcement on LRM changes, the game seems to always have a temporary flood of LRM use as people check out the new mechanic. This normally, well, normalizes after a few days to a few weeks after the change, depending upon what was changed. So, any change to AMS may promote more AMS for a while, but being a change also to how LRMs get treated, it will also promote their experimentation as well. Thus, people will quickly figure out that LRM5s would, once again and still, be the best LRM launcher, especially if it can be boated. Sure, it helps protect more against large boated LRMs (once again, somehow), but it would still give LRM5s much more of a boost. And sure, it would give LRMs as a support weapon a boost too, but people would still gain more from boating the 5s, or just even more larger launchers than that.
- I wouldn't even consider changing LRM ammo count per ton as a balance point at this stage. That would be a clause if it seems out of balance from other changes, but more than likely you'd tweak the spread numbers, lock on mechanics or how AMS worked (again in this case) if any one piece seemed to make LRMs "too good to be true". First, we'd have to make them more normalized between all ranks of play (if that is the intention), and/or normalized between boated and support loadout options. If they seem to suddenly need less ammo (as in, people are taking less ammo per 5 tubes of launcher), than consider that damage potential is out of whack, and then adjust ammo count per ton. (I actually still highly doubt that these would be the results seen. But if it is...)

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Going forward i see that you have suggestions on how to improve LRM but what i was asking primarily is a suggestion on how to keep LRM in check if they start to be too powerful instead of reducing ammo density.

As I said above (but I'll just repeat here for formality and organization), I would adjust spread, lock on mechanics or (if AMS was altered) how AMS had an affect on LRMs, or even adjust how they tracked onto a target, or even make all LRMs stream out like the Clan LRMs currently. I'd possibly change a lot of things before I would touch ammo counts. Really the only time I would probably consider adjusting ammo count per ton would be if I noticed people started to take less tonnage of ammo per LRM tube count. If it remained 180 missiles per 5 tubes, than I'd leave it be. If people started to take 1.5 tons for 10 tubes (or etc as the launcher size grew) as an average, than I'd adjust LRM ammo count, to bring it back to 1 ton per 5 tubes (which seems to be a steady number). Even this could indicate that LRM users are just being destroyed sooner, thus needing less ammo as they don't run out before death. Or, it could even mean that LRMs are dealing more damage so that they need less ammo before all/most targets are dead.

Changing the ammo count could easily knock out LRMs as a support weapon, making it more prone to being a boated weapon because "if I need that much tonnage I might as well boat/not-use LRMs." Make taking it too heavy, and you'd starve out those few of us that seem to take a few smaller launchers as an actual support to our mechs other weapons.

Believe it or not, adding more ammo per ton may actually encourage the desired effect instead. That would either encourage more people to take some LRMs with them on their mech, or it will leave LRM boats with some extra tonnage (if they don't just pile on larger launchers of course) to place some serious back up weapons. Go to far though in this direction, and now LRM "boats with more guns" start to become too powerful, able to fight in a brawl and at range... (instead of being more focused in one over the other.)

This can literally go either way, depending upon how people react to it. I'd be very hesitant to adjust ammo count unless I noticed a huge shifting trend in the count to weapon ratio happening. There are many other things that can be adjusted instead...

Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

You mean something like the picture on the page 6 of this thread? That's a very good rebalance and one i can get behind even in isolation.


Spread is much more tricky to balance than you may think it is. I see that a lot in different games and game discussions. People think that 2x spread is 2x worse but it's not. It's Pi*R² so 2x spread means 4x area, 3x spread means 9x area. The second thing you should be aware of is the target's cross-section. I don't have exact numbers but i have a feeling that mech's cross-section grows faster than its armor points with the weight class increase. So an assault mech can take 5x more damage from a spread-based weapon compared to light mech while having only 3x more armor. That's why it is better to have missiles home in on specific parts rather than being a spreadshot weapon.

Yes, and no. It's an option I'd love to pursue and see how it would affect things. However, I'd be suspecting (as much as I like the concept) that it might actually increase LRM damage, making it from a "stripe the armor off all the mech" to "you just lost that component". Those would be 5 point wacks at a specific component, depending upon how tightly it tracks to those components. A single LRM20 would produce the affect of being hit by 4 AC5s at once... I would want to test this and see how it works. It could be good, could easily be too much...

A set spread (if all launchers had the same spread) provides more saturation bombardment. With an overall larger spread (as far as individual launcher, but not when boated) would mean larger mechs would probably take more damage all over (instead of mostly CT like the LRM5 spam) (they also have more armor) and smaller mechs would take less (being faster and smaller). It would break the smaller launchers being better in every way (refire rate, ammo consumption, lock loss risk, spread/hitting CT/killing), while letting the larger launchers (which weigh a lot) being worth the weight investment to taking them. This would probably discourage individual launchers, depending upon the launcher size. But, then we can possibly improve speed, tracking, etc. The larger spread would also be more likely to hit faster moving targets, meaning Tracking actually may be able to be tuned down some. (Without testing, I can't know the exact affects.)

It's a tough thing to consider, without any real way to test and see what becomes of it. I understand your scaling problem, as larger target means a spread weapon is more effective against them. But imagine seeking components on a smaller target, it would be even more detrimental to them. I mean, look at SSRMs. Deadly to light mechs, hardly a nuisance to larger mechs. I mean, even some Medium mechs can ignore a SSRM boat for a short while... But a light mech? Completely devastated after a single alpha most times.


Also, as a side note, larger mechs have more room. Thus, larger mechs can/should have the room for AMS units, where as smaller units tend not to have that type of room. I think having LRMs more effective against larger/slower targets could be mitigated by AMS and staying in a group together. Of course, depending upon how it's balanced out... Depending upon the changes... (As I said, I'd love to test it out more, if I could.)

MacClearly, on 18 January 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

I actually like that you take the time to type out well thought out points. It at least makes me think and I am always open to the possibility of being wrong or change. I consider it a strength.

Yeah, but not everyone wants to come home, go to their notifications, and have to sit down for a week reading one of my novels of a post I put up sometimes.

To be honest, there is a reason I was sitting on the post above yours for so long. 1. Time it would take to respond. 2. Considering how I wanted to go about responding, as I don't want to sound rude or insult someone when that is not my intention.

I also feel I babble a lot... Sometimes repeating things without realizing it...

[Arugela]

People don't like LRM's because they don't play well and the people around them don't play well and they pick on it as the odd man out for their frustrations. People don't even use the fuction to set targets for close range to focus targets and they get mad about long range not being used near them to help or whatnot.

What they don't get is that the "r" fuction for lock target is designed to coordinate the entire team/match. It is your one in game indicator of what you friends are doing. And to use it you always have to have the ability to get the lock for others. It's on purpose. You have groups and you set targets and everyone fires at once. This includes LRM which is dependent on it to make it not overpowering. LRM is designed so that you get a multiplier where you could not get weapon fire otherwise. And it has very long range. It is an extremely powerful tool nobody uses as they do not use any tools or understand what they are for in the game and do not do anything but solo hunt targets in the worst way possible.

If people could understand and think out what they and their allies could do in a given situation and think normaly to work together to take out enemies they would use R and want LRM all the time. They would be bothered not to have it and think when it can be used as it is the only long range weapons in the game not dependent on line of sight. There is no reason at any point not to want and try to use another weapon that can hit from another angle you already can't with other weapons and not want to pile more DPS on the situation. It is all their is to the game. It's not complicated. But people can't figure out what it is for or think the little bit it takes to utilize it or anything else in the game.

If and when people in this game normally start to think of how to use more than themselves to take their enemies out as quickly as possible and win matches conveniently they will beg for LRM. Even if you are just fireing over your friend it is extra DPS no other weapon can give as it is the only none LOS weapon.

There is also no group composition LRMs do not aide because of their nature. They should be everyones best friend. the only problem is the lack of general coordination. The game was designed to have at least the leader use the R/target function to get everyone to shoot together. I'm referring to non LRM's. The lack of this level of basic coordination is what removes the use of LRM. it is also it's balancing mechanism. People are their worst enemies in this game. Nothing else to it. You play properly LRM's are your buddy. You act like a selfish spoiled brat out for yourself you loose and LRM's complain all match about not being used. All you got to do is use target and work together to kill stuff as quick as possible. Target is the most powerful tool in the game. Followed by LRM's themselves. The game is designed around and requires you to use it to play well. Nothing more to say about it. If you are not giving constant steady targets to LRMs you are literally not playing correctly. This game is that simple. It's designed to be that simple. But people don't use it to make the game go smoothly.

Maybe if they changed to game to auto target more when you hit stuff... Not sure if that would work though. Or give the leader target power only and force leader positions in match along with more auto target from the leader only. Might make groups work better. It would at least increase the chance of everyone fireing together. and possibly improve general gameplay. this game needs player crutches. That is all their is too it. They should probably force the stuff in game already to it's limit. Maybe if only leaders and light's/other mechs with proper equipment can use target... One's oriented towards spotting. That or just make it give more power automatically to the leader and make him coordinate the match.

Edited by Arugela, 18 January 2017 - 11:24 PM.

[Van Tuz]

Tesunie, on 18 January 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

- I don't see how missiles could continue to be locked (under any of the currently running mechanics or concepts) without the target being locked as well. Or are you suggesting that missiles that can lock start to become "fire and forget" to some extent? If this is the case, it removes more skills LRM users actually do use, and will move it closer to a skill-less weapon, as so many are so quick to already call them. (Mind, this is an "if this is your concept".)

Let me explain my logical chain here and tell me at which step you start to disagree with me.
1) Radar deprivation affects LRM making it easier to evade.
2) For LRM to be properly balanced this effect must be removed.
3) There's only 2 ways to do it: completely remove radar deprivation or tweak it so it won't affect missiles.
My suggestion is intended to make LRM behave exactly the same when target has radar deprivation equipped and when it does not.

Tesunie, on 18 January 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

- Sure, it helps protect more against large boated LRMs (once again, somehow), but it would still give LRM5s much more of a boost. And sure, it would give LRMs as a support weapon a boost too, but people would still gain more from boating the 5s, or just even more larger launchers than that.

Solid protection against mass LRM + viable LRM as secondary weapon > removing penalty to boated LRM5 IMO. Do you agree with that statement? Please answer "Yes" or "No" without "But"s (i know that there's always "buts")
I'm sure there's a lot of ways to tone down LRM5-boats strength. Make LRM spread constant across all launcher sizes and you'll have 4 LRM5 = LRM20 in terms of attack. Increase LRM5 heat generation to 5 units and you may have LRM5 boats struggling with overheat.

Tesunie, on 18 January 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

Changing the ammo count could easily knock out LRMs as a support weapon, making it more prone to being a boated weapon

You're saying it like there's a lot of support LRM currently on the field. I have my doubts about that.

Edited by Van Tuz, 19 January 2017 - 10:57 AM.

[David Sumner]

BlueFlames, on 23 November 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

If you've got an LRM boat that can do its own job, great. If you can read the battlefield and use indirect fire effectively, without demanding that other players be your meatshield, then great. If you'll stay with the main force and put your armor to effective use, then great. If you're doing your job, then by the end of the match, the team won't notice or care that you were using LRMs instead of an equivalent direct-fire sniper build.

Except that the whinge hate begins at the start of the match when I go
"LRM Archer here, what else we got?" so that I can maybe encourage some team talk and get an idea of the range profiles of my team mates.

[Tesunie]

Okay. First I wish to appologize for the untimely manner in which I'm responding to this. I meant to do this a while ago, but life got busy and stuff...

Van Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

Let me explain my logical chain here and tell me at which step you start to disagree with me.
1) Radar deprivation affects LRM making it easier to evade.
2) For LRM to be properly balanced this effect must be removed.
3) There's only 2 ways to do it: completely remove radar deprivation or tweak it so it won't affect missiles.
My suggestion is intended to make LRM behave exactly the same when target has radar deprivation equipped and when it does not.

1. Agreed. Now if Adv. Target Decay(ATD) worked as a true counter...
2. Or countered by it's actual counter ATD, instead of only slightly countered. But otherwise agreed.
3. I'll be honest and say I'd much rather have Radar Dep be removed completely from the game (and in turn, same with ATD at that point). But, short of that, I'd rather just have ATD actually fully counter Radar Dep, instead of it's partial counter it does now. The best way to do that would be to have Radar Dep not completely remove normal decay (which I believe is 2.5 seconds) but instead remove some decay, reducing it by the same amount ATD increases decay (which last I knew was 1.5 seconds). Thus, even with Radar Dep, now the two counter each other and even without ATD, players would still havea 1.0 second base decay against targets with Radar Dep. Now, when a tiny wire sits in front of an enemy mech, I don't have flickering locks while I can still see them, but instead would most likely maintain that lock.

(Actually, the whole "how much of the enemy mech do you need to see to get a lock" could use some adjustment from what I've observed. Something doesn't seem right with it, as I've been shot at before by a direct fire mech, and unable to lock them at all because only their shoulders were showing. Other times, someone was immune to locks because I could see all of their mech, except for their CT (old Terra Therma was known for this with some cables). It seems like you need to see CT/head to get a lock, and an arm, shoulder or legs are not enough to do so... Not sure. Just something I've observed over time.)

Van Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

Solid protection against mass LRM + viable LRM as secondary weapon > removing penalty to boated LRM5 IMO. Do you agree with that statement? Please answer "Yes" or "No" without "But"s (i know that there's always "buts")
I'm sure there's a lot of ways to tone down LRM5-boats strength. Make LRM spread constant across all launcher sizes and you'll have 4 LRM5 = LRM20 in terms of attack. Increase LRM5 heat generation to 5 units and you may have LRM5 boats struggling with overheat.

I'll remark that I'm always a "why" kind of person. "Why did they do that?" "What was it that caused this to happen?" "Why is this able to happen?" I've never cared much for legal courts "yes or no" answer type system, as there is always a "why" to things happening. That motivation of why something happened can make all the difference. "Did you swerve into on coming traffic intentionally and hit that family van, murdering those people?" "Yes." Guilty! "Yes, but I did so to avoid a moose that walked into my lane of traffic, and I didn't see that oncoming van in my panic." Not guilty!

Anyway... In TT (where most of MW:O rules come from) AMS actually is suppose to shoot down a percentage of all missiles that are incoming. It's described more as a MG with automated targeting systems, but I'd almost rather see it as a shot gun. It shoots out a spread of chaff, which then would knock out a percentage of incoming missiles, instead of aiming for a missile at a time. (To ease my "how would that work" reflex.) I'm still "uncomfortable" with the concept of AMS gaining efficiency as more missiles are incoming, compared to possibly being overwhelmed and having a network of them being more rewarding...

One of my current concerns would be, how would this effect multi-AMS mechs, such as the Nova and Kit Fox which can have up to 3 AMS system? Would stacking AMS on one mech start to lose efficiency? Currently it's worth taking triple AMS because they stack their effectiveness, providing more protection by triple the amount. Make it a diminishing returns... and it may hurt those mechs.


So, as far as "yes or no", I'd have to say yes, as I'd like to encourage LRMs as support weapons as much as they are a boated weapon. However, the more rational side of me wants to say "no", as there is also a reason to boat LRMs. I believe LRMs would need to be addressed in how they operate first (for example they move rather slowly, and work more as mid ranged missiles than actually long range missiles), before we could change how AMS addresses them...

I would like to note, we are talking balance here. There are a lot of things to consider. If I could test this on something like a PTS, I'd all be for seeing how it worked and if it had the desired effects. It's not a doomed concept, just I don't support it at this time with what evidence/considerations I can think of at this time.

Van Tuz, on 19 January 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

You're saying it like there's a lot of support LRM currently on the field. I have my doubts about that.

I know I myself run LRMs as a support weapon on my mechs. I will admit I do seem to be one of a very select few that do so... Everyone else seems to want to push boating LRMs (or rather, any weapon/role) for best "min/maxing" effects... So... *Shrug*



Edit: Corrected a missing word... Word was placed in bold, just so you'd notice it. (I need to proof read more...)

Edited by Tesunie, 10 April 2017 - 10:29 AM.

[LMP]

LRM haters hate them because they don't like missiles raining down on them while in a fight or because it forces them to find cover when they hear the warning and they think it's too easy to use them while they are bravely engaging in honorable battle in dangerous surroundings all of which is like a giant advertisement for how well they really work.

If you don't like them don't say anything otherwise you will only increase the number of people who use them.

[Tesunie]

LMP, on 10 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

If you don't like them don't say anything otherwise you will only increase the number of people who use them.

I use them because I like them and feel I am very good with them. It has little to do with if lots of people like or hate them.

Then again, I also use PPCs, ACs, lasers... Okay. Just about every weapon in the game...

[AureliusDean]

Evil Goof, on 23 November 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

The guy in a well configured Archer with solid backup weapons such as shown in video? Not too many would complain about that guy.

You just made me cry... that's the first nice thing anyone has ever said to me in this game.

[Black Lanner]

I have more or less just skimmed this topic... I'll pop in with some of my CBT Loremastery. A rather intense debate is going on and I rather respect it. Now there is talk about the LRM needing to "Fire and Forget" regardless of the lock being maintained, as a way to re-balance them... I have an alternative, in the TT, the is an experimental weapon system called... wait for it... Streak LRMs! That is how I would implement them.

Now, as for LRMs for the Clans in general... they may become moot with ATMs on the way, because you can effectively switch from support to splat, simply by closing the range. Mostly this depends on if the ATMs get a lob or not. Mostly, I am thinking not, but then that makes them useless at range, which is supposed to be the point, that they are effective at all ranges.
If MWO ever progresses to the Jihad era, then the I.S. will get it's own version with MMLs, which I would really like to see. Then there is the possibility of the Thunderbolt Launchers for the I.S. which could be fun and eliminate spread... likely it's flight trajectory will be more shallow than that of LRM's. Then there are Enhanced LRMs (I.S.) that still do damage right out of the launcher and Extended LRMs (also I.S.) which have even more range, but for that to work, they would have to fly higher and have a steeper attack angle, which was attempted by PGI and became known as LRMAGEDDON... which didn't work well.

This game is evolving and I think that all of these aspects: where the game is currently, where the game has been, where the game is going, and (I would argue as most important) where the game may go per the Lore; all of these aspects need to be considered, not only from the perspective from the player using these weapons, but also as the person on the receiving end of these weapons.

Edited by Black Lanner, 11 April 2017 - 10:44 PM.

[Tesunie]

Black Lanner, on 11 April 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

Now there is talk about the LRM needing to "Fire and Forget" regardless of the lock being maintained, as a way to re-balance them...

I can tell you, as someone whom uses LRMs a lot... I actually would be opposed to the concept of Fire and Forget aspects being added to them. Not that it wouldn't buff the weapon well, but because it would make them potentially too powerful and is an unneeded feature, when I could think of many more things that could be adjusted long before I've consider that.

As you put it, we need to consider the person using the weapon as much as the person being hit by the weapon...

[David Sumner]

Tesunie, on 03 January 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

On maps that people claim there is no LRM cover, I always seem to find some. Those same said maps that you "can't get into a brawl with the enemy", I still find ways to get close. The thing is, you just need to know how to do it and where to go.

I find it's okay to have a few maps that have more sparse cover, and some others that have lots of cover. Not every map should be like HPG or Crimson Straights where you have a nice anti-LRM umbrella to hide under. Then again, not every map should be as open as Alpine and Polar. We really need to maintain a reasonable mix of map types.

Hell, I'd settle for not having 80%+ of matches not be in the HPG, Collective, Crimson, River City loop.
Is that perhaps because people are scared of LRMs?

[Tesunie]

David Sumner, on 13 April 2017 - 02:09 AM, said:

Hell, I'd settle for not having 80%+ of matches not be in the HPG, Collective, Crimson, River City loop.
Is that perhaps because people are scared of LRMs?

Well, HPG and Crimson have little LRM umbrellas in them... But I know HPG is often chosen because it's a symmetrical map, so it's seen as "balanced". Canyon is also rather symetrical.

I do suspect that the LRM umbrellas may be part of the reason those maps you listed are so favored, compared to Alpine or Polar. LRMs seem to be at a state where they are "useless" but everyone seems to fear them despite them being "weak" and "easy to avoid".

But I'm just speculating here.

[InspectorG]

LMP, on 10 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

LRM haters hate them because they don't like missiles raining down on them while in a fight or because it forces them to find cover when they hear the warning and they think it's too easy to use them while they are bravely engaging in honorable battle in dangerous surroundings all of which is like a giant advertisement for how well they really work.

If you don't like them don't say anything otherwise you will only increase the number of people who use them.

No even close, man.

LRMs suck because they are a terrible means of delivering damage. They have the most Hard Counters. They have the most requirements in order to even fire.

And this is coming from a guy who pilots Dire Whales in Solo without AMS.

I only ever really die to them if i gamble and get out of position to find an angle.

Or my team got rolled and its 4-12 YOLO Valhalla time.

[Koniving]

You mean this?

Or this?

(Note how long it takes for my Raven to die...)

Edited by Koniving, 14 April 2017 - 04:37 PM.

[McHoshi]

No one hates Lurms... But most of us find them really uneffective compared to other weapon systems...

[Koniving]

Used to say cut firing rate in half, double their damage. Increase their speed with similar tracking ability (no improvements to counter the speed mind you). Less spam. Fast reaching. Hard hitting. Easy to avoid if you're fast enough.

But we know that won't happen.

Much like SRMs with guidance, despite the lore we have short range MRMs with extra damage instead.

[Acehilator]

Uh, a 13 pages anti-LRM semi-threadnought and I missed it? Omg!

Good to see the self-proclaimed elitists are directing new players in the "right" direction. Offering an unbiased point of view would be asking too much I guess.