68 replies to this topic

[Composite Armour]

Is it possible to tie missile spread to lock time?

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

So, you want the LRM20 to be four times better than the LRM5 with no drawbacks, less space, less tonnage, and less heat.

Except that LRM20 weighs 2 more tons and takes up 1 more slot than 4x LRM5, and additionally it does less DPS than 4x LRM5, which I would hope it does since 4 weapons should have more DPS than 1 bigger weapon, but the point is that LRM20 isn't exactly the DPS king of LRMs (outside of an assault LRM boat).

Sounds like drawbacks to me, which is fine because the decreased spread would actually make it worth using with the increased volley size, but I guess that's not acceptable to you.

Quote

That seems to be what you are asking for. Having a spread just as tight as a smaller launcher, but with no real trade-off.
With what you are asking for, a 'mech with 4 LRM20s should be able to core an enemy 'mech completely from cover, letting the auto guidance (and a teammate) do the actual work.

So it's fine when smaller launchers do it, but when you have 40 tons of weaponry and nearly half a ton of ammo being expended in 1 volley it's not fine?

No wonder LRM20 is such a piece of crap when people cry so much about the big bad launchers that can only fire 20 missiles all at once on mechs with a high enough tube count, which isn't many.

Quote

Bad to you. It is, however, the nature of the beast. You can either blot out the sun with missiles, OR you can be super accurate. You cannot have both.

Bad to me and the vast majority of players who don't bother using it ever.

Quote

But it does. As it is, when you fire a LRM20, you know that some missiles WILL miss due to inherent spread. If the spread were tightened, but they missiles were fired in volleys of 5, a good LRM boat has the chance to keep the target locked and deal more damage.

The irony of course being that forced volley fire will make missiles miss even more, meaning players have less control, which you make clear...

Quote

Conversely, a good player has the opportunity to use cover more effectively.

Right here. Why do you even need that extra forgiving opportunity to dodge bigger missile volleys just because it comes from a bigger launcher? What you're actually asking for is to allow players to play more sloppy when it comes to LRMs hitting them because bigger launchers would never be able to fire all at once.

How about you just play better in the first place and not throw a fit at the idea of being hit by an actually threatening volley of missiles from a 10 ton, 5 slot weapon that only certain mechs can use optimally?

I also find it funny that you say "As it is, when you fire a LRM20, you know that some missiles WILL miss due to inherent spread" to support your argument, and then balk when I suggest addressing that directly by not screwing over big LRM launchers with unduly increased missile spread and also without screwing them over with dumb ideas like volley fire at all times.

Edited by Pjwned, 13 January 2017 - 04:24 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

Except that LRM20 weighs 2 more tons and takes up 1 more slot than 4x LRM5, and additionally it does less DPS than 4x LRM5, which I would hope it does since 4 weapons should have more DPS than 1 bigger weapon, but the point is that LRM20 isn't exactly the DPS king of LRMs (outside of an assault LRM boat).

Sounds like drawbacks to me, which is fine because the decreased spread would actually make it worth using with the increased volley size, but I guess that's not acceptable to you.

IF you aren't using Artemis. (Which is not something I would believe someone wanting tighter spreads would do).

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

So it's fine when smaller launchers do it, but when you have 40 tons of weaponry and nearly half a ton of ammo being expended in 1 volley it's not fine?

No wonder LRM20 is such a piece of crap when people cry so much about the big bad launchers that can only fire 20 missiles all at once on mechs with a high enough tube count, which isn't many.

Smaller launchers do not have the ability to destroy fresh 'mechs with one click.

Remember, when you buff a weapon, you buff the boat exponentially.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

Bad to me and the vast majority of players who don't bother using it ever.

You can speak for yourself, but not the vast majority of players. I am of the opinion that a tighter spread, fired in 5-missile volleys, would be incentive enough for many players. You obviously feel that the reason people do not use LRM20s is because they cannot insta-kill 'mechs. (Which is what you are asking for)

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

The irony of course being that forced volley fire will make missiles miss even more, meaning players have less control, which you make clear...

Not necessarily. GOOD players would miss LESS. It would be something left up to pilot skill, not an automatic x% of missiles miss.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

Right here. Why do you even need that extra forgiving opportunity to dodge bigger missile volleys just because it comes from a bigger launcher? What you're actually asking for is to allow players to play more sloppy when it comes to LRMs hitting them because bigger launchers would never be able to fire all at once.

Because of the spread being so much tighter. 20 points of damage is a lot to light and medium 'mechs. (And remember, reality says that it would be multiple LRM20s. 40, 60, 80 pts is a lot of damage to ANY 'mech)

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

How about you just play better in the first place and not throw a fit at the idea of being hit by an actually threatening volley of missiles from a 10 ton, 5 slot weapon that only certain mechs can use optimally?

Now, THAT is funny. Would you teach me to "play better"? I always wanted to acquire the skills of a T3 Lurmboat...
(How about we stop with the personal attacks and discuss the merits of the argument?)
And, of course, you miss the entire point that it would be very rare that a player is single-firing the weapon. The reality is that players would be hit by multiple LRM20s with incredibly tight spreads and auto-aim.

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

I also find it funny that you say "As it is, when you fire a LRM20, you know that some missiles WILL miss due to inherent spread" to support your argument, and then balk when I suggest addressing that directly by not screwing over big LRM launchers with unduly increased missile spread and also without screwing them over with dumb ideas like volley fire at all times.

Which is why I support the idea of a uniform (tighter) spread, but without unleashing Lurmaggeddon III. As I said earlier, you can have two of the three: EZ-aim, tight spread, or the ability to put 80+ LRMs in the air simultaneously, but you cannot have all three (without breaking the game).

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 13 January 2017 - 05:18 AM, said:

IF you aren't using Artemis. (Which is not something I would believe someone wanting tighter spreads would do).

I think you're being more than a little dense, because Artemis IV has nothing to do with big LRM launchers getting screwed by increased spread when they shouldn't be, and additionally sidestepping the actual point I was making when you whined about LRM20 not having drawbacks when they actually do.

Obviously Artemis IV will (situationally, and at a cost of tonnage & slots) decrease missile spread on direct fire targets, but guess what bigger ALRM launchers have more spread than smaller ALRM launchers too, and obviously my issue is with the increased spread on bigger launchers whether or not Artemis IV is involved.

Quote

Smaller launchers do not have the ability to destroy fresh 'mechs with one click.

Remember, when you buff a weapon, you buff the boat exponentially.

That wouldn't happen with LRM boats either, and additionally your examples all involve massive numbers of missiles being fired at once while completely ignoring how impractical those builds are that even allow you to fire that many missiles at once, let alone the number of mechs that have big enough missile hardpoints to allow all those missiles to be fired at once.

Quote

You can speak for yourself, but not the vast majority of players. I am of the opinion that a tighter spread, fired in 5-missile volleys, would be incentive enough for many players.

Actually I can speak for myself and the players who don't use big LRM launchers due to the unduly increased spread, which is the vast majority of them.

I didn't say I spoke there for the vast majority of players' opinion on your (stupid) idea.

Quote

You obviously feel that the reason people do not use LRM20s is because they cannot insta-kill 'mechs. (Which is what you are asking for)

No, I just want them to be actually useful and threatening, unlike you I guess, especially since what you're saying wouldn't happen unless perhaps you stood out in the open in your Locust for every enemy mech and their mother to target you for a prolonged period of time.

Quote

Not necessarily. GOOD players would miss LESS. It would be something left up to pilot skill, not an automatic x% of missiles miss.

I don't think you understand the point. I can indeed compensate for my bigger LRM launchers not firing all at once by more aggressively pursuing locks so that all (or more) of the missiles would land before you take cover, but the reason I would need to do that is because you apparently need a handicap against bigger launchers.

So I'm expected to play better just so you can play more sloppy because of your whining about big LRM launchers being an actual threat? Get a grip please.

Again, what would actually happen with your stupid idea is that I would just not bother with big LRM launchers at all, for good reason, and then they go back to being trash tier.

Quote

Because of the spread being so much tighter. 20 points of damage is a lot to light and medium 'mechs. (And remember, reality says that it would be multiple LRM20s. 40, 60, 80 pts is a lot of damage to ANY 'mech)

And yet those lights & mediums have the speed (and smaller profile) necessary to avoid getting hit by LRMs, so it's their fault if they get blown up by big launchers that are actually threatening just like it's their fault when they get blown up by lasers or PPCs or gauss rifles or whatever else, and again I'm going to laugh at your overly exaggerated examples.

Quote

Now, THAT is funny. Would you teach me to "play better"? I always wanted to acquire the skills of a T3 Lurmboat...
(How about we stop with the personal attacks and discuss the merits of the argument?)

So when you say something stupid like this and miss the point of what I was saying:

Quote

Not necessarily. GOOD players would miss LESS. It would be something left up to pilot skill, not an automatic x% of missiles miss.

It doesn't mean you should learn to play better and/or understand the game better.

Okay champ, clearly you have the authority here with your higher experience bar--I mean PSR tier.

Quote

And, of course, you miss the entire point that it would be very rare that a player is single-firing the weapon. The reality is that players would be hit by multiple LRM20s with incredibly tight spreads and auto-aim.

Except I realize you're hugely exaggerating the frequency of that happening as well as the number of missiles in question. You are correct that mechs with LRMs tend to have more than just 1 launcher--which is actually a problem because mixed builds with non-boated LRMs should be more viable--but you are still exaggerating about everything else to a pretty ridiculous extent, especially with your insistence of "multiple LRM20s" for apparently every single one of your examples which is both laughable and stupid.

Quote

Which is why I support the idea of a uniform (tighter) spread, but without unleashing Lurmaggeddon III. As I said earlier, you can have two of the three: EZ-aim, tight spread, or the ability to put 80+ LRMs in the air simultaneously, but you cannot have all three (without breaking the game).

Which is a bad idea because big LRM launchers would be worse off than they are now, particularly IS LRMs which are partly balanced by firing their missiles all at once but I guess you don't give the slightest crap about that.

Edited by Pjwned, 14 January 2017 - 11:40 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Good grief.

LRMs suffer in a lot of ways, many of which -really- need to be normalized across the board for all launchers.

Spread. Yes, really. Even if it means putting everything at roughly LRM 10 levels (OMG LRM 5 NERF!). In TT, an LRM 5 hits with an average of 3 missiles. An LRM 20, 12. In MWO, the bigger a launcher, the lower the % of a launch-to-target connects, meaning not only does the same number of LRM 5s vs a bigger launcher weigh less, it's more efficient on hitting the target and fires faster to boot. Even now. By comparison, with guidance bonuses (say, NARC) in TT that goes up to 4/5 (a LRM 20 16/20). Again, the percentage of a salvo hitting is equal and scaled evenly regardless of missile launcher size.

Reload time. Yep, again. Slow em down and match em up. Canonically, LRMs have a five second reload time but again, it doesn't get worse with bigger launchers. Slower launchers reduce the most hated effect of LRMs, spamming and rattling a target. Equalizing reload time also helps equalize performance between launchers. I'd aim for around five to six seconds before a launcher is up, with Clan launchers being marginally slower still. Slower launchers would also reduce the "ammo hog" of LRMs, potentially freeing up a ton or two since you'd be putting out fewer missiles over time.

Increase velocity. LRMs aren't even remotely accurate past 500m, which isn't even their TT range. At least push them up to 250, giving them a similar accuracy window to roughly 750m that they have now at 500m. This goes hand-in-hand with the slower ROF- changing missiles from a spam barrage to a precision weapon. Rocket launchers are spam weapons. LRMs are not rocket launchers. Again, Clan launchers will have a slightly lower velocity than IS ones, much like Streak vs CStreak.

Tweak damage to compensate for the reduced reload speed. I'll leave that up to the experts, but otherwise the longer reload cycle will equal a damage nerf to an already weak weapon.

Set unlocked missiles to fire flat similar to SRMs, rather than an arc and without Artemis tightening spread. This means LRMs are no longer automatically useless in tunnels or firing at something under vertical cover, but may end up hitting friendlies on the way in and won't hit anything with even remotely focused damage.

These changes would both alter and improve the role of the LRM in MWO. I can bet we won't see a single one of these happen, but they'd work.

[El Bandito]

Composite Armour, on 12 January 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

Is it possible to tie missile spread to lock time?

Of course. Just like convergence mechanic, which PGI used to have.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

I think you're being more than a little dense, because Artemis IV has nothing to do with big LRM launchers getting screwed by increased spread when they shouldn't be, and additionally sidestepping the actual point I was making when you whined about LRM20 not having drawbacks when they actually do.

The discussion was about spread. I should have been more clear earlier when talking about weight and crits, but HONESTLY, if spread is the issue, who wouldn't be taking Artemis?

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Obviously Artemis IV will (situationally, and at a cost of tonnage & slots) decrease missile spread on direct fire targets, but guess what bigger ALRM launchers have more spread than smaller ALRM launchers too, and obviously my issue is with the increased spread on bigger launchers whether or not Artemis IV is involved.

And I proposed a workable solution to have a uniform (tighter for bigger launchers) spread.
...But you want tight spread AND full volleys, which, when boated, makes the weapon too powerful.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

That wouldn't happen with LRM boats either, and additionally your examples all involve massive numbers of missiles being fired at once while completely ignoring how impractical those builds are that even allow you to fire that many missiles at once, let alone the number of mechs that have big enough missile hardpoints to allow all those missiles to be fired at once.

You do not think that if something CAN be abused it WOULD be abused?
...and YOU call ME stupid.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Actually I can speak for myself and the players who don't use big LRM launchers due to the unduly increased spread, which is the vast majority of them.

Actually you can speak only for yourself.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

I didn't say I spoke there for the vast majority of players' opinion on your (stupid) idea.

Yes, you did.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

No, I just want them to be actually useful and threatening, unlike you I guess, especially since what you're saying wouldn't happen unless perhaps you stood out in the open in your Locust for every enemy mech and their mother to target you for a prolonged period of time.

Your definition of "useful and threatening" must be "Easy mode auto aim". If you can put 60 missiles into the space of one LRM5 spread circle, many 'mechs larger (and slower) than Locusts would be out of effective commission.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

I don't think you understand the point. I can indeed compensate for my bigger LRM launchers not firing all at once by more aggressively pursuing locks so that all (or more) of the missiles would land before you take cover, but the reason I would need to do that is because you apparently need a handicap against bigger launchers.

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with making the easiest weapon to deal damage with in the game have the ability to focus that damage.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

So I'm expected to play better just so you can play more sloppy because of your whining about big LRM launchers being an actual threat? Get a grip please.

I have no expectation that you will play better. I have the expectation that you will whine that larger LRM launchers have too much spread, and when given a viable solution, you to whine that all of the damage does not hit at once.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Again, what would actually happen with your stupid idea is that I would just not bother with big LRM launchers at all, for good reason, and then they go back to being trash tier.

2 ALRM20s would become better than 8 ALRM5s. I see plenty of 6 ALRM5s, so I am guessing they are not trash.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

And yet those lights & mediums have the speed (and smaller profile) necessary to avoid getting hit by LRMs, so it's their fault if they get blown up by big launchers that are actually threatening just like it's their fault when they get blown up by lasers or PPCs or gauss rifles or whatever else, and again I'm going to laugh at your overly exaggerated examples.

Usually they can, but certain maps lack decent cover, and Escort mode gives free UAVs, so there is no universal way to always avoid LRMs (which there doesn't need to be). As stated earlier, 60+ LRMs in a tight spread can also ruin a heavy or assault's day.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

So when you say something stupid like this and miss the point of what I was saying:

Your heavy reliance on ad hominems actually bolsters MY argument, not yours.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

It doesn't mean you should learn to play better and/or understand the game better.

LMFAO@U! No, it didn't mean you personally. I was making a point that GOOD players would make good use of it and BAD players would whine about it. If you took it personally, it speaks to which type of player you are. For example, take the Gauss Rifle charge up. I never hear GOOD players complain about it.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Okay champ, clearly you have the authority here with your higher experience bar--I mean PSR tier.

An experience bar that relies too heavily on damage, yet here you are, an LRM boat shooting at T3, 4, and 5 targets, and cannot advance.
....Hmmmm.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Except I realize you're hugely exaggerating the frequency of that happening as well as the number of missiles in question. You are correct that mechs with LRMs tend to have more than just 1 launcher--which is actually a problem because mixed builds with non-boated LRMs should be more viable--but you are still exaggerating about everything else to a pretty ridiculous extent, especially with your insistence of "multiple LRM20s" for apparently every single one of your examples which is both laughable and stupid.

If it can happen, I guarantee you it WILL happen.

Pjwned, on 14 January 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

Which is a bad idea because big LRM launchers would be worse off than they are now, particularly IS LRMs which are partly balanced by firing their missiles all at once but I guess you don't give the slightest crap about that.

I would think the tighter spread would be a worthwhile trade-off, but you obviously want easy mode aim, huge damage, AND tight spread.
Keep whining, maybe PGI will listen.

Edited by Hotthedd, 15 January 2017 - 11:11 AM.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 15 January 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

The discussion was about spread. I should have been more clear earlier when talking about weight and crits, but HONESTLY, if spread is the issue, who wouldn't be taking Artemis?

The topic was pretty clearly about spread as it pertains to bigger launchers, you might want to re-read the OP and the rest of the discussion.

And as far as who wouldn't be taking Artemis IV, your oh so scary LRM80 boats would be ripped to shreds if they tried to take advantage of it, and hell even LRM80 boats without Artemis is a stupid & bad build, but you try to make a mountain out of a molehill by crying about how much that would be "abused" if bigger launchers had missile spread actually worth a damn.

Quote

And I proposed a workable solution to have a uniform (tighter for bigger launchers) spread.
...But you want tight spread AND full volleys, which, when boated, makes the weapon too powerful.

Show me those scary builds then--that still would not core out a fresh mech unless you stand out in the open with a Locust like in my example--and I'll try to contain my laughter.

Quote

You do not think that if something CAN be abused it WOULD be abused?
...and YOU call ME stupid.

It would be "abused" with builds that are laughably bad, and it would only be effective against bad players because your examples of "abusing" it are examples of terrible builds.

Quote

Actually you can speak only for yourself.

Well actually I can just look at how often LRM20 is used, which is pretty much never, and draw a pretty solid conclusion from that.

Quote

Yes, you did.

Okay champ, the closest thing I said (elsewhere) is that people would not bother using bigger launchers as a result of your stupid idea, not that I spoke for peoples' opinion of your (stupid) idea. I do happen to think it's pretty safe to say that the people who would (rightly) realize that bigger LRM launchers would be bad with your (stupid) idea would also think your idea is stupid in addition to realizing that big LRM launchers would be bad, since you seem to think that's what I said even though it wasn't, but that isn't what I actually said earlier if you want to re-read here:

Pjwned, on 12 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

Bad to me and the vast majority of players who don't bother using it ever.

Quote

Your definition of "useful and threatening" must be "Easy mode auto aim". If you can put 60 missiles into the space of one LRM5 spread circle, many 'mechs larger (and slower) than Locusts would be out of effective commission.

They could also just dodge the LRMs, or bring AMS, or both.

I never said it couldn't possibly be normalized to a looser spread either, and actually I also mentioned a while back that there could be other adjustments like tweaking spread for indirectly fired missiles, although that shouldn't be needed unless you want to additionally buff LRMs in some other way, such as increased velocity, to compensate for that.

All I said was that bigger launchers need to not be screwed over with unduly increased spread, while also avoiding ideas like yours where the tradeoff is worse than the gain and they still remain trash.

Quote

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with making the easiest weapon to deal damage with in the game have the ability to focus that damage.

You mean the ability to focus that damage to an extent that bigger launchers are actually worth bringing?

Wow, what a ridiculous expectation!

It's also not the "easiest weapon to deal damage with in the game" unless you're playing against potatoes.

Quote

I have no expectation that you will play better. I have the expectation that you will whine that larger LRM launchers have too much spread, and when given a viable solution, you to whine that all of the damage does not hit at once.

1) I find it funny you say that when I pretty clearly said how players in LRM mechs would need to compensate for your stupid idea, so I guess I would know how to do that but not actually accomplish it according to you.

2) It's not a viable solution though, that's the point.

Quote

2 ALRM20s would become better than 8 ALRM5s. I see plenty of 6 ALRM5s, so I am guessing they are not trash.

1) If by "better" you mean more tonnage & slot efficient due to 8 ALRM launchers vs 2 ALRM launchers then yeah sure, but obviously 2 ALRM20s would not be more effective than 8 ALRM5s, and that's the entire point of your idea because of bigger launchers getting screwed over in addition to smaller launchers already having superior DPS compared to the same number of tubes with bigger launchers.

2) 6x ALRM5 (as well as 8x ALRM5) doesn't get screwed over by your nonsense idea because you can actually fire all of the missiles at once with that build; that's the whole damn point of why it's a stupid idea and the result would just be only LRM boats that can cram in as many LRM5s as possible.

Quote

Usually they can, but certain maps lack decent cover, and Escort mode gives free UAVs, so there is no universal way to always avoid LRMs (which there doesn't need to be). As stated earlier, 60+ LRMs in a tight spread can also ruin a heavy or assault's day.

1) The best map for LRM boats, Polar Whinelands, still has plenty of decent cover unless you're bad, and to throw your argument back at you some maps have a ridiculous amount of cover that makes dodging LRMs extremely easy e.g Crimson Strait and Mining Collective.

2) You could try just not standing under UAVs, wow what a thought. It's also not my problem if a bad game mode has lame features, nor does it justify extremely lame nerfs to weapons because bads need a handicap.

Quote

Your heavy reliance on ad hominems actually bolsters MY argument, not yours.

Meanwhile you completely miss my point multiple times or else just cop out entirely and don't address it at all elsewhere, which obviously makes for some truly amazing arguments.

Quote

LMFAO@U! No, it didn't mean you personally. I was making a point that GOOD players would make good use of it and BAD players would whine about it. If you took it personally, it speaks to which type of player you are. For example, take the Gauss Rifle charge up. I never hear GOOD players complain about it.

You're still missing the point that good players would have to play better because bad players apparently need a handicap against big launchers, and if you think that's fine then you have a scrub mentality.

I don't complain about gauss rifle charge up either, for the record, because that doesn't make a weapon irrelevant unlike your stupid idea for bigger LRM launchers.

Quote

An experience bar that relies too heavily on damage, yet here you are, an LRM boat shooting at T3, 4, and 5 targets, and cannot advance.
....Hmmmm.

It's actually not that I can't advance, it's that I haven't bothered playing enough to advance.

Keep thinking the experience bar aka PSR means much though if you want to, I'm happy to show that you're wrong while being "tier 3" since you seem to care about that.

Quote

If it can happen, I guarantee you it WILL happen.

It will happen infrequently, sure, but it won't be a problem for various reasons, unless you're bad I guess.

Quote

I would think the tighter spread would be a worthwhile trade-off, but you obviously want easy mode aim, huge damage, AND tight spread.
Keep whining, maybe PGI will listen.

Well you would think wrong, especially when the "tighter spread" would be more or less negated with the tradeoff of forced volley fire, unless again you're playing against bads who would sit there and take endless volleys of LRMs in which case yeah sure it would be a "worthwhile trade-off," but I guess I don't want to balance the game around the enemy being potatoes and apparently that's a bad thing because I just want my easy mode auto-aim to kill anything instantly.

Again, you clearly don't give a crap about IS LRMs actually being decent or that they're balanced with their group fire, but you want to take that away under the guise of improving them when they would just end up being dogshit.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 January 2017 - 05:08 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

The topic was pretty clearly about spread as it pertains to bigger launchers, you might want to re-read the OP and the rest of the discussion.

And as far as who wouldn't be taking Artemis IV, your oh so scary LRM80 boats would be ripped to shreds if they tried to take advantage of it, and hell even LRM80 boats without Artemis is a stupid & bad build, but you try to make a mountain out of a molehill by crying about how much that would be "abused" if bigger launchers had missile spread actually worth a damn.

If that build had the same spread as a single LRM5+A, it would be deadly.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Show me those scary builds then--that still would not core out a fresh mech unless you stand out in the open with a Locust like in my example--and I'll try to contain my laughter.

80 damage within the spread ratio of a single LRM5+A is laughable?
Every map and every situation provides cover? With that build, a 'mech only has to be hit once to be shredded.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

It would be "abused" with builds that are laughably bad, and it would only be effective against bad players because your examples of "abusing" it are examples of terrible builds.

You do realize that what is considered a bad build now, and what would be a bad build with extreme changes in weapons systems would be different. You are asking for a meta-shift.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Well actually I can just look at how often LRM20 is used, which is pretty much never, and draw a pretty solid conclusion from that.

Again, used now, and used after the mega-buff you want are two distinctly different things.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Okay champ, the closest thing I said (elsewhere) is that people would not bother using bigger launchers as a result of your stupid idea, not that I spoke for peoples' opinion of your (stupid) idea. I do happen to think it's pretty safe to say that the people who would (rightly) realize that bigger LRM launchers would be bad with your (stupid) idea would also think your idea is stupid in addition to realizing that big LRM launchers would be bad, since you seem to think that's what I said even though it wasn't, but that isn't what I actually said earlier if you want to re-read here:

Right. Taking away every drawback of the larger launcher over the smaller launcher would make them worse. Apparently to you, normalizing spread and giving the advantage of less overall weight is the only way to make the weapon worth taking.
Maybe you should stop asking for bigger crutches?

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

They could also just dodge the LRMs, or bring AMS, or both.

How effective is AMS against 60 or 80 tightly spread missiles at once? Not every situation provides cover, either. There are times that open terrain must be crossed in a push, or it is simpla an open map with no real cover, or even EZ mode permanent UAVs in Escort mode. When you make a weapon so powerful as to be able to one-shot most 'mechs from cover and range, you invite gameplay problems.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

I never said it couldn't possibly be normalized to a looser spread either, and actually I also mentioned a while back that there could be other adjustments like tweaking spread for indirectly fired missiles, although that shouldn't be needed unless you want to additionally buff LRMs in some other way, such as increased velocity, to compensate for that.

I actually agree with that.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

All I said was that bigger launchers need to not be screwed over with unduly increased spread, while also avoiding ideas like yours where the tradeoff is worse than the gain and they still remain trash.

The tradeoff is not bad. SOME tradeoff would be necessary, however.
(And, it really wasn't my idea, it comes directly from TT, where there was no problem taking larger launchers.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

You mean the ability to focus that damage to an extent that bigger launchers are actually worth bringing?

Yes. Which the tighter spread would give you. However, you cannot reasonably expect to have the ability to auto-aim 80+ points worth of damage to one component from cover and still have a viable game.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Wow, what a ridiculous expectation!

Yes, it is. Unless you would be willing to change the aiming mechanic to require LoS.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

It's also not the "easiest weapon to deal damage with in the game" unless you're playing against potatoes.

In terms of "Damage dealt" only, LRMs are by far the absolutely easiest weapon in the game. The difference between playing against potatoes or skilled pilots is the # of kills and destroyed components. LRM boats are designed to do a lot of damage, but that damage is spread.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

1) I find it funny you say that when I pretty clearly said how players in LRM mechs would need to compensate for your stupid idea, so I guess I would know how to do that but not actually accomplish it according to you.

2) It's not a viable solution though, that's the point.

1) You get a tighter spread. Without compensating, it would be a wash (roughly the same # of missiles hit). WITH the skill to compensate, a good pilot would be able to do more effective damage. A pilot who hides behind cover, relying on others to get locks, would still get the same results. The fact that you are asking for bigger crutches makes me believe you would neither know how to do it, nor be able to.

2) Just because you cannot grasp the concept does not mean the solution is not viable. You see, there needs to be a potential downside for every potential upside. You just want upsides.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

1) If by "better" you mean more tonnage & slot efficient due to 8 ALRM launchers vs 2 ALRM launchers then yeah sure, but obviously 2 ALRM20s would not be more effective than 8 ALRM5s, and that's the entire point of your idea because of bigger launchers getting screwed over in addition to smaller launchers already having superior DPS compared to the same number of tubes with bigger launchers.

Let's compare. (You can either ignore GH, or add it in)
2 LRM20+A: 22T, 12 heat, 40 damage, 4.3 sec CD, 12 crits.
Group-fired it would shoot 4 volleys of 10 missiles each in a tight spread.
8 LRM5+A: 24T, 16 heat, 40 damage, 3.5 sec CD, 16 crits. (2 tons, 4 heat, and 4 crits more)
Group-fired it would shoot 1 volley of 40 missiles in a tight spread.
(Chain-fire would be 8 volleys of 5 missiles for both)
Do you not see where each layout has an advantage or disadvantage against the other in certain situations?
Do you not see that neither of these is game breaking? Sure the 8xLRM5+A can deal devastating alphas, but very few 'mechs can carry that armament.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

2) 6x ALRM5 (as well as 8x ALRM5) doesn't get screwed over by your nonsense idea because you can actually fire all of the missiles at once with that build; that's the whole damn point of why it's a stupid idea and the result would just be only LRM boats that can cram in as many LRM5s as possible.

If your only viable playstyle is "Alphaderp everything", then sure. In my opinion, you are missing a valuable way to team play with LRMs.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

1) The best map for LRM boats, Polar Whinelands, still has plenty of decent cover unless you're bad, and to throw your argument back at you some maps have a ridiculous amount of cover that makes dodging LRMs extremely easy e.g Crimson Strait and Mining Collective.

There is decent LOS COVER, but a team with an effective spotter, or a sky full of UAVs, there is little effective cover. LoS cover works against EVERY weapon (except LRMs).
Nobody argued that some maps have better cover than others.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

2) You could try just not standing under UAVs, wow what a thought. It's also not my problem if a bad game mode has lame features, nor does it justify extremely lame nerfs to weapons because bads need a handicap.

UAVs do not always get shot down in a timely fashion, and if it only takes one volley from LRMs to cripple an assault 'mech, the the weapon would be too powerful. Remember, good scouts and skirmishers know when and where to make the most of a perfectly placed or timed UAV.
And it is EVERYBODY'S problem if a bad game mode makes one weapon system overpowered in that mode. You do not see it as your problem because you are the beneficiary of the poor design.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Meanwhile you completely miss my point multiple times or else just cop out entirely and don't address it at all elsewhere, which obviously makes for some truly amazing arguments.

You want larger weapons to get the tighter spread of smaller weapons, but keep the advantage of firing all missiles at once, even with less tonnage and space.
What did I miss?

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

You're still missing the point that good players would have to play better because bad players apparently need a handicap against big launchers, and if you think that's fine then you have a scrub mentality.

YOU miss the point that bad players would still do around the same damage as before, but better players would have the chance to do more damage and have more kills. And if you cannot see that, you will remain an average player.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

I don't complain about gauss rifle charge up either, for the record, because that doesn't make a weapon irrelevant unlike your stupid idea for bigger LRM launchers.

Do you use Gauss rifles? If you don't use them, I wouldn't expect you to complain.
If you DO use them, and can overcome the charge-up (which makes them harder to use than before), then why would you rely on easy mode LRMs?

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

It's actually not that I can't advance, it's that I haven't bothered playing enough to advance.

If you say so. It shouldn't take too many games doing average LRM-boat damage numbers to reach tier 1....

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Keep thinking the experience bar aka PSR means much though if you want to, I'm happy to show that you're wrong while being "tier 3" since you seem to care about that.

It is an experience bar, mostly.
But if you lack experience, perhaps you shouldn't be telling others that they are scrubs.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

It will happen infrequently, sure, but it won't be a problem for various reasons, unless you're bad I guess.

And you know this how?
One thing is certain in this game, the meta will change when a weapon becomes too powerful. Plenty of players will jump at the chance to insta-gib assaults from behind cover.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Well you would think wrong, especially when the "tighter spread" would be more or less negated with the tradeoff of forced volley fire, unless again you're playing against bads who would sit there and take endless volleys of LRMs in which case yeah sure it would be a "worthwhile trade-off," but I guess I don't want to balance the game around the enemy being potatoes and apparently that's a bad thing because I just want my easy mode auto-aim to kill anything instantly.

You know what makes me think you're a bad player? The fact that you believe every other player is within 2 seconds of impenetrable cover, or unengaged with an enemy, or just sitting around in the open.

Pjwned, on 17 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

Again, you clearly don't give a crap about IS LRMs actually being decent or that they're balanced with their group fire, but you want to take that away under the guise of improving them when they would just end up being dogshit.

Maybe for you.
I'm more worried about the capable players.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 19 January 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

If that build had the same spread as a single LRM5+A, it would be deadly.

It would be deadly against a potato.

Quote

80 damage within the spread ratio of a single LRM5+A is laughable?
Every map and every situation provides cover? With that build, a 'mech only has to be hit once to be shredded.

The damage isn't laughable, sure, and that's kind of the point because I don't want damage from big LRM launchers to be laughable, but the build itself is laughable due to being so ridiculously overloaded with missiles. I also find it telling that you don't (want to) show me a build, probably because the build would be so obviously ineffective and it would prove how much of an exaggerating twit you're being with your examples of the most absurd number of missiles possible being more or less your only focus.

Why not just play a dire whale with 9 ER PPCs at that point? It's only slightly more of a joke build but it can still vaporize a target with 1 click quite a bit easier yet I don't see you whining about that.

Quote

You do realize that what is considered a bad build now, and what would be a bad build with extreme changes in weapons systems would be different. You are asking for a meta-shift.

No, it would still be a bad build actually. Just like how it is now, an actually decent build would not only feature less tonnage dedicated to weapons--let alone weapons that spread damage as much as LRMs do even with tightened spread on bigger launchers--because that leaves so little room for everything else like the engine and heatsinks, it would also feature at least some backup weapons and/or other long range non-LRM weapons to complement the LRMs, which obviously means a lot less tubes firing at once than in your terrible examples of 80 LRMs fired at once, which is again only possible in certain mechs with big enough missile hardpoints anyways and you keep dodging that point repeatedly even though it's obviously something to consider.

Quote

Again, used now, and used after the mega-buff you want are two distinctly different things.

Welcome to the point, genius. They're not used now, because they're bad, and that's the reason to buff them...without screwing them over with some horrible tradeoff.

Quote

Right. Taking away every drawback of the larger launcher over the smaller launcher would make them worse. Apparently to you, normalizing spread and giving the advantage of less overall weight is the only way to make the weapon worth taking.
Maybe you should stop asking for bigger crutches?

Well except that they don't have the advantage of less overall weight, like I already said earlier which you flagrantly ignored & sidestepped after baselessly whining about it, unless you take the most extreme example possible and compare 8x ALRM5 launchers vs 2x ALRM20 launchers, and the weight advantage for 2x ALRM20 is only because of the weight added from 6 extra Artemis IV launchers.

Additionally, because LRM20 weighs more than 4x LRM5, you find that only after you add that 8th ALRM5 launcher is it more heavy than 2x ALRM20, despite those Artemis IV systems adding 6 extra tons to the equation, so excuse me if I don't get all up in arms about LRM20 weighing less than multiple LRM5 in that situation only.

Quote

How effective is AMS against 60 or 80 tightly spread missiles at once? Not every situation provides cover, either. There are times that open terrain must be crossed in a push, or it is simpla an open map with no real cover, or even EZ mode permanent UAVs in Escort mode. When you make a weapon so powerful as to be able to one-shot most 'mechs from cover and range, you invite gameplay problems.

1. So you give me an example of crossing open terrain in a push, which presumably means pushing grouped up with your team, but you act like only 1 mech at best is equipped with AMS and with only 1 single AMS despite multiple variants being able to carry multiple AMS. One AMS is not going to be that effective against a huge number of LRMs, sure, but 2 or 3 or more will make a more noticeable dent.

2. Which amounts to essentially 1 map, and you can still just deal with it by playing better.

3. Fix the mode then if it's such a concern.

Quote

I actually agree with that.

Well alright then. Like I said I don't think it's really needed to normalize to a looser spread or to further tweak spread when considering LOS, but I'm not saying I can't possibly be wrong about that and anyways my focus is on not giving big LRM launchers the shaft.

Quote

The tradeoff is not bad. SOME tradeoff would be necessary, however.
(And, it really wasn't my idea, it comes directly from TT, where there was no problem taking larger launchers.

It is a bad tradeoff, a tradeoff being necessary in the first place is arguable at best, and how it worked in TT is not comparable because obviously MWO plays a lot differently.

Quote

Yes. Which the tighter spread would give you. However, you cannot reasonably expect to have the ability to auto-aim 80+ points worth of damage to one component from cover and still have a viable game.

Well you're not going to have to that happen when you fire from cover because Artemis IV--which is what you whine about the most--won't have an effect, meaning significantly looser spread, and additionally the size of the target mech also matters as to how much the damage is spread out.

Quote

Yes, it is. Unless you would be willing to change the aiming mechanic to require LoS.

Puke.

That would just make all LRMs worthless rather than everything except LRM5 worthless.

Quote

In terms of "Damage dealt" only, LRMs are by far the absolutely easiest weapon in the game. The difference between playing against potatoes or skilled pilots is the # of kills and destroyed components. LRM boats are designed to do a lot of damage, but that damage is spread.

And yet they're also by far the easiest weapon to avoid, or if you can't handle that then they're also easily mitigated with AMS.

Quote

1) You get a tighter spread. Without compensating, it would be a wash (roughly the same # of missiles hit). WITH the skill to compensate, a good pilot would be able to do more effective damage. A pilot who hides behind cover, relying on others to get locks, would still get the same results. The fact that you are asking for bigger crutches makes me believe you would neither know how to do it, nor be able to.

Again, you are the one asking for a crutch by demanding players with bigger launchers compensate for players who need a handicap.

Tired of repeating this point and you projecting your need for crutches onto me because of you being an idiot.

Quote

2) Just because you cannot grasp the concept does not mean the solution is not viable. You see, there needs to be a potential downside for every potential upside. You just want upsides.

No, I grasp the concept pretty clearly actually, which is why I know the solution is not viable, and your "downside for every upside" contention is idiotic when bigger LRM launchers are not used in the first place because they don't have enough upsides and they do in fact have downsides.

Quote

Let's compare. (You can either ignore GH, or add it in)
2 LRM20+A: 22T, 12 heat, 40 damage, 4.3 sec CD, 12 crits.
Group-fired it would shoot 4 volleys of 10 missiles each in a tight spread.
8 LRM5+A: 24T, 16 heat, 40 damage, 3.5 sec CD, 16 crits. (2 tons, 4 heat, and 4 crits more)
Group-fired it would shoot 1 volley of 40 missiles in a tight spread.
(Chain-fire would be 8 volleys of 5 missiles for both)
Do you not see where each layout has an advantage or disadvantage against the other in certain situations?
Do you not see that neither of these is game breaking? Sure the 8xLRM5+A can deal devastating alphas, but very few 'mechs can carry that armament.

Take out the "shoot 4 volleys of 10 missiles" part, and it's still not game breaking.

After considering that, this is what I would also say:

1. It would be fair to say that (due almost exclusively to Artemis IV increasing tonnage & slots by a huge factor, but still) 8x ALRM5 would generally be less desirable than 2x ALRM20, but on the other hand if you really wanted that increased DPS then you could give up some tonnage, heat, and slots (compared to 2x ALRM20) and it would still be a justifiable build.

2. Again, only certain mechs have big enough hardpoints to fire LRM20s all at once, let alone 2 or more LRM20s, so you would not even see every mech that can reasonably equip LRM20(s) actually doing so because of missile hardpoint sizes, or if they did equip oversized launchers then the missiles are volley fired in that case anyways which is reasonable enough.

3. Congratulations on not giving me a hugely exaggerated number of missiles fired with LRM20s, because I thought that wouldn't be possible from you, and firing 40 LRMs from 2x LRM20 is a much more reasonable example unlike your other dumb examples of firing 80 (or even 60) LRMs at once because those are bad (or, at best, sub-par) builds. On that note I would ask you if firing 40 LRMs at once with (reasonably) tight spread is game breaking, because my answer is "absolutely not." Are you still going to complain about it when LRM20s are fired all at once (with reasonably tight spread) to that extent, or does your argument start to fall apart when it's not exaggerated as much as possible?

Quote

If your only viable playstyle is "Alphaderp everything", then sure. In my opinion, you are missing a valuable way to team play with LRMs.

It isn't, but it's important to have the ability to do that for when you know you have a good opportunity to really unleash the LRMs and have them all hit, which you completely remove for bigger launchers with your idea.

Quote

There is decent LOS COVER, but a team with an effective spotter, or a sky full of UAVs, there is little effective cover. LoS cover works against EVERY weapon (except LRMs).
Nobody argued that some maps have better cover than others.

1. WHOA, HOLY **** LRMS ARE ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE WITH AN EFFECTIVE SPOTTER!!! ALERT THE F'ING PRESS!!!

Your team could try dealing with the spotter, by any number of means, or you could send out your own spotter to do the same to them, or group up more tightly with AMS, or go find the areas with suitable LRM cover even when you are being spotted. At this point if you're whining about a spotter working together with their LRM mech(s) then you're just whining about being outplayed which ceases to be an issue with LRMs, and then you have the GOD DAMN NERVE to tell me that I'm the one asking for crutches and that I wouldn't know what to do with myself if your crap idea was implemented while you say the stupidest crap like this...f*** me man.

2. You could try just shooting the UAVs or not standing under them.

3. And yet you seem to completely ignore those other maps featuring more cover because you're hyper focused on the 1 or 2 with less cover, so you're making a **** argument there, just like it's a **** argument to focus more or less exclusively on examples of LRM80 boats despite what a bad build that is.

Quote

UAVs do not always get shot down in a timely fashion, and if it only takes one volley from LRMs to cripple an assault 'mech, the the weapon would be too powerful. Remember, good scouts and skirmishers know when and where to make the most of a perfectly placed or timed UAV.
And it is EVERYBODY'S problem if a bad game mode makes one weapon system overpowered in that mode. You do not see it as your problem because you are the beneficiary of the poor design.

1. And actually good players will still compensate for all of that by doing things such as, oh I don't know, not making idiotic engagements in your assault mech with no suitable cover anywhere nearby.

2. The solution is to fix the bad game mode.

Quote

You want larger weapons to get the tighter spread of smaller weapons, but keep the advantage of firing all missiles at once, even with less tonnage and space.
What did I miss?

Apparently you missed that you're wrong about less tonnage and space except in the most extreme examples possible.

Quote

YOU miss the point that bad players would still do around the same damage as before, but better players would have the chance to do more damage and have more kills. And if you cannot see that, you will remain an average player.

No, both bad and good players would do less damage with big LRM launchers due to them getting screwed by your dumb idea, and that would be due to giving targets a handicap against big launchers.

They would do better with the smallest launchers because those launchers don't get screwed by your idea, but then everything else would do worse and that's why it's a bad idea.

Tired of repeating this point as well.

Quote

Do you use Gauss rifles? If you don't use them, I wouldn't expect you to complain.
If you DO use them, and can overcome the charge-up (which makes them harder to use than before), then why would you rely on easy mode LRMs?

I'm not understanding your point here, are you asking me why I would use LRMs ever when I could just use gauss rifles instead?

If that's the case then that's a horrible position to have for 3 reasons:

1. That sets the expectation that you should never use LRMs over gauss if you're good at using gauss, because gauss is just better and LRMs are not worthwhile.

2. Aside from gauss and LRMs having completely different roles, it's much more practical to bring LRMs on many mechs than it is to bring a gauss rifle.

3. If LRMs really were just so inferior then that would completely negate all of your whining about firing LRMs from cover, because why would it matter if they're so bad or if gauss was just so much better or both.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Quote

If you say so. It shouldn't take too many games doing average LRM-boat damage numbers to reach tier 1....

It is an experience bar, mostly.
But if you lack experience, perhaps you shouldn't be telling others that they are scrubs.

Not bothering to play enough to advance PSR doesn't mean not having plenty of experience from having played much more extensively prior to PSR.

I'm only handing out the word "scrub" when it's called for, and I've seen multiple instances of you saying something where it's definitely called for and then you proceed to double down on it too.

Quote

And you know this how?
One thing is certain in this game, the meta will change when a weapon becomes too powerful. Plenty of players will jump at the chance to insta-gib assaults from behind cover.

1. Already outlined how I know and how it wouldn't be a problem even when it would happen.

2. Not only are you being ridiculous about insta-gibbing assaults from behind cover with LRMs, unless they have their back turned to the LRMs and they take huge volleys from multiple mechs, the assaults can just play better and not have that happen.

Quote

You know what makes me think you're a bad player? The fact that you believe every other player is within 2 seconds of impenetrable cover, or unengaged with an enemy, or just sitting around in the open.

1. Well, depending on the situation, which is most of the time actually, you should be a short distance (at your speed) away from good cover. If you're trying to tell me that always being far away from cover is playing well, then I have some news for you...it isn't.

2. If you make a bad engage and leave yourself overly vulnerable to direct fire and indirect fire then, again, that's you playing poorly.

3. Not only does that not make sense to say to me, that's apparently what you believe actually.

Quote

Maybe for you.
I'm more worried about the capable players.

Well no, you're more worried about players who need a handicap against bigger launchers actually, like I already said.



Are we almost done here yet? I will continue to more or less address your points but I'm getting fairly tired of repeating myself on multiple points and/or pointing out your idiocy, which is not the entirety of my response but it's certainly a lot of it and that just made my long response take even longer.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 January 2017 - 11:27 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

This is one lesson that MW:O could take straight from TT.

Have missiles fire in volleys of 5.
Spread can be normalized with and without Artemis.

Problem solved.

One time I agree with you, MW4 did missiles the best because of this. You loaded up on LRM5s to get one giant packet of missiles at the cost of heat efficiency. This allowed lighter mechs to boat LRM5s to do more concentrated damage while heavies and assaults boated larger launchers for having the benefit of pure volume of missiles compared to what they would have if they boated LRM5s.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

One time I agree with you, MW4 did missiles the best because of this. You loaded up on LRM5s to get one giant packet of missiles at the cost of heat efficiency. This allowed lighter mechs to boat LRM5s to do more concentrated damage while heavies and assaults boated larger launchers for having the benefit of pure volume of missiles compared to what they would have if they boated LRM5s.

That's obviously not a compelling reason to bring bigger launchers when they are already not used due to their less concentrated damage on top of their other drawbacks.

Further questions have probably been covered already in my giant posts above.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

That's obviously not a compelling reason to bring bigger launchers when they are already not used due to their less concentrated damage on top of their other drawbacks.

The difference is how they concentrate damage though which is a portion you are somewhat overlooking at least within the context of MW4. In MW4, an LRM20 could still have all packets hit the same section regardless of size of the target (basically MW4 spread damage by a time factor rather than a spatial factor like MWO), in MWO they can't.

Either way, I know from experience of playing in a game with that sort of balancing mechanic larger launchers were perfectly acceptable and so were the smaller launchers.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 12:08 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

The difference is how they concentrate damage though which is a portion you are somewhat overlooking at least within the context of MW4. In MW4, an LRM20 could still have all packets hit the same section regardless of size of the target (basically MW4 spread damage by a time factor rather than a spatial factor like MWO), in MWO they can't.

Well, if you're arguing for forced volley fire LRMs in MWO because it worked well in MW4 for reasons that don't apply in MWO, that doesn't sound very convincing unless you specifically have something in mind to compensate, such as emulating MW4 missile spread or whatever else you might have in mind for that.

My solution is to just normalize launcher spread without screwing with how they fire, and while I am open to other reasonable ideas, I think that's most likely the best solution.

Quote

Either way, I know from experience of playing in a game with that sort of balancing mechanic larger launchers were perfectly acceptable and so were the smaller launchers.

Well, I've already made my case in above posts as to why I don't think it'll work here, I think I have good reason to think that, and I think I also have good reason to think it wouldn't be unbalanced to just tighten the spread and not mess with firing patterns in the process.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 January 2017 - 12:41 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 11:16 AM, said:

* Numerous ad hominems and refuted facts repeated ad nauseum *

One thing that we have learned in MW:O is that buffs to single weapons result in mega-buffs to boaters of that weapon.

Tightly spread LRMs from the largest launchers with no drawbacks is a major buff.

Some people need their auto-aim, some people want pin-point damage, but few people whine that they cannot have both.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Well, if you're arguing for forced volley fire LRMs in MWO because it worked well in MW4 for reasons that don't apply in MWO, that doesn't sound very convincing unless you specifically have something in mind to compensate, such as emulating MW4 missile spread or whatever else you might have in mind for that.

I would advocate for the bolded part if only so that they will be forced to fix the LRM mechanics so that they don't just automatically home in on center of gravity (which causes them to always hit legs when a target is moving away from them or CT if moving into them).

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Well, I've already made my case in above posts as to why I don't think it'll work here, I think I have good reason to think that, and I think I also have good reason to think it wouldn't be unbalanced to just tighten the spread and not mess with firing patterns in the process.

Except for the fact you invalidate one of the launchers at some point because they are all competing for the same massed role. I liked the firing pattern approach since it gave a difference in role between them better (the most concentrated damage was hotter and slightly heavier than the volume fire approach). There is a reason there has been a constant tug-of-war between the smaller launchers and the larger launchers since the beginning of MWO.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 12:58 PM.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 19 January 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

One thing that we have learned in MW:O is that buffs to single weapons result in mega-buffs to boaters of that weapon.

Tightly spread LRMs from the largest launchers with no drawbacks is a major buff.

Some people need their auto-aim, some people want pin-point damage, but few people whine that they cannot have both.

If you want to not cop out of the entire argument you can still actually respond with an argument worth a damn, but if not then I did say I'm tired of repeating myself and demonstrating how you're an idiot for a large portion of my response, so I don't mind too greatly if you concede.

As far as it being a buff...yeah, that's kind of the point, genius; go back and read what I said if you want to know more.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

I would advocate for the bolded part if only so that they will be forced to fix the LRM mechanics so that they don't just automatically home in on center of gravity (which causes them to always hit legs when a target is moving away from them or CT if moving into them).

Well you can go ahead and explain in more detail how that would actually work if you want to, because that's still fairly vague, but I don't know how much I'll contribute in response; probably not a lot.

Quote

Except for the fact you invalidate one of the launchers at some point because they are all competing for the same massed role. I liked the firing pattern approach since it gave a difference in role between them better (the most concentrated damage was hotter and slightly heavier than the volume fire approach). There is a reason there has been a constant tug-of-war between the smaller launchers and the larger launchers since the beginning of MWO.

So which launcher is invalidated then? Considering (what I've already said, which is that) bigger launchers are bulkier and/or heavier than their sum total in smaller launchers, except in extreme cases where Artemis IV is involved, I'm just not convinced.

Again I don't like the firing pattern approach because it doesn't make big launchers a compelling option when they already have drawbacks as is.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

Well you can go ahead and explain in more detail how that would actually work if you want to, because that's still fairly vague, but I don't know how much I'll contribute in response; probably not a lot.

Duplicate as many missile mechanics from MW4 as possible. MWO has never had good LRM mechanics and it really needs to fix them. It isn't just LRM spread that needs a rework, it is everything.

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

So which launcher is invalidated then? Considering (what I've already said, which is that) bigger launchers are bulkier and/or heavier than their sum total in smaller launchers, except in extreme cases where Artemis IV is involved, I'm just not convinced.

Again I don't like the firing pattern approach because it doesn't make big launchers a compelling option when they already have drawbacks as is.

The launcher invalidated is which ever gives the best concentrated damage per salvo. Right now that is still the LRM10 (given other factors as well). They tried to make the smaller launchers both more accurate and have higher DPS (despite these smaller launchers also being less heat efficient), the problem is that the difference isn't stark enough such that they are still competing for the same role, massed missiles such that there will always be an optimal launcher size that is the most effective at that.

Making them more like MW4 allows them to have different roles despite having the same cooldown because heat and tonnage control their efficacy at those roles (massed LRM5s are like PPFLD LRMs, LRM10-20 are like UAC LRMs). Then again that leaves sustained fire out of the picture for LRMs but meh.

[Hotthedd]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

If you want to not cop out of the entire argument you can still actually respond with an argument worth a damn, but if not then I did say I'm tired of repeating myself and demonstrating how you're an idiot for a large portion of my response, so I don't mind too greatly if you concede.

As far as it being a buff...yeah, that's kind of the point, genius; go back and read what I said if you want to know more.

I have already proven my point.

The funny part is, YOU continue to prove my point.

[L1f3H4ck]

MacClearly, on 10 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

Hey have you tried large pulse lasers or ppc? What about guass?

Seriously though unless there is something significant done to make the use of lrms require more skill absolutely zero buffs should be considered.

Actually, using LRMs properly requires skill, otherwise you end up bombarding buildings and mountain ranges while asking for locks. I'm also against buffing LRMs, cuz some people HAVE figured them out, and you don't want to give them more firepower, trust me.