68 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

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.

I would suggest making a new thread then (or bumping an old thread if it exists?) if you want more interest on that subject, because you've largely lost my attention now...no offense.

Quote

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.

Again I'm not seeing how that happens when the spread is normalized, which following your claim (seems to) suggest(s) that big launchers would be favored, but when big launchers are heavier and/or bulkier (as well as slower cooldown, and being restricted to mechs with big enough missile hardpoints to fire all at once) then that suggests it evens out.

I have a feeling this is just going to go in circles.

Quote

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.

I don't see the point of claiming "different roles" if sustained fire is not one of them.

Guess I was right, don't have much to contribute here.

Hotthedd, on 19 January 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

I have already proven my point.

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

You didn't really prove anything of value since you opted to just cop out massively instead.

Oh well, guess you don't have any further argument even though I tried...what a terrible tragedy; don't let the door hit your sore butt on the way out.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

Again I'm not seeing how that happens when the spread is normalized, which following your claim (seems to) suggest(s) that big launchers would be favored, but when big launchers are heavier and/or bulkier

They may be bigger/bulkier, but that doesn't mean a mech with 5-6 hardpoints isn't going to strap on that launcher because they are more effective for the tonnage, it just means good LRM boats are the ones that can afford the higher initial tonnage investment JUST like occurs with ballistics currently. Just because they have a slower cooldown doesn't mean anything if they are more effective for the tonnage investment (meaning they give more effective tonnage per ton than another launcher) and are more heat efficient on top of that (which means higher sustained DPS than the "DPS" oriented missile launchers).

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

I don't see the point of claiming "different roles" if sustained fire is not one of them.

Because there isn't a difference between cUACs and iUACs/iACs.....oh wait. Yes burst damage vs FLD is still a difference in role. Just like there was a difference in play between RACs and Gauss in MW4 despite both being not so great at sustained damage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 02:13 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

They may be bigger/bulkier, but that doesn't mean a mech with 5-6 hardpoints isn't going to strap on that launcher because they are more effective for the tonnage, it just means good LRM boats are the ones that can afford the higher initial tonnage investment JUST like occurs with ballistics currently. Just because they have a slower cooldown doesn't mean anything if they are more effective for the tonnage investment (meaning they give more effective tonnage per ton than another launcher) and are more heat efficient on top of that (which means higher sustained DPS than the "DPS" oriented missile launchers).


Because there isn't a difference between cUACs and iUACs/iACs.....oh wait. Yes burst damage vs FLD is still a difference in role. Just like there was a difference in play between RACs and Gauss in MW4 despite both being not so great at sustained damage.

Look, either he is too dense to get it, or he is willing to look like a fool because he wants easy-aim, big damage, tight spread launchers while someone else gets him locks.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 02:12 PM, said:

They may be bigger/bulkier, but that doesn't mean a mech with 5-6 hardpoints isn't going to strap on that launcher because they are more effective for the tonnage, it just means good LRM boats are the ones that can afford the higher initial tonnage investment JUST like occurs with ballistics currently. Just because they have a slower cooldown doesn't mean anything if they are more effective for the tonnage investment (meaning they give more effective tonnage per ton than another launcher) and are more heat efficient on top of that (which means higher sustained DPS than the "DPS" oriented missile launchers).

1. You lost me with the point about ballistics because they all obviously have very different roles. You don't say that AC20 is so much better than AC2 at brawling, because yeah no **** AC20 is better at brawling since that's its role, and on the other hand you don't say AC2 is so much better than AC20 at long range fire, because obviously AC20 will do 0 damage at max optimal range of AC2; it's not the case that the heavier one is just better when it comes to ballistics.

2. It's not just a given that bigger launchers--at the cost of tonnage & slot efficiency in most cases--is more effective for the tonnage because that increased effectiveness also comes at the cost of increased tonnage; you don't just get that effectiveness for free and that skews the equation in a way that makes it not cut & dry.

3. If it was a concern for the build then the tonnage (and/or slots) gained from smaller launchers could be used for more heatsinks potentially, while still keeping that lower cooldown, so I think you're oversimplifying it a bit.

Quote

Because there isn't a difference between cUACs and iUACs/iACs.....oh wait. Yes burst damage vs FLD is still a difference in role. Just like there was a difference in play between RACs and Gauss in MW4 despite both being not so great at sustained damage.

Hardly a worthwhile difference, especially not at the cost of sustained fire which you callously dismiss, and that's not something I take lightly.

That's not something I'm likely to agree that LRMs should be about either.

Hotthedd, on 19 January 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

Look, either he is too dense to get it, or he is willing to look like a fool because he wants easy-aim, big damage, tight spread launchers while someone else gets him locks.

Oh boy, now it's mad baby shitposting tantrum time after getting told, yay.

So predictable.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

1. You lost me with the point about ballistics because they all obviously have very different roles. You don't say that AC20 is so much better than AC2 at brawling, because yeah no **** AC20 is better at brawling since that's its role, and on the other hand you don't say AC2 is so much better than AC20 at long range fire, because obviously AC20 will do 0 damage at max optimal range of AC2; it's not the case that the heavier one is just better when it comes to ballistics.

Except those don't have the same range, which is why that comparison makes no sense. The Light PPC/PPC/Heavy PPC comparison makes more sense because they have the same effective role and range and are just different sizes of each other (much like the LRM family), but even that isn't quite right given they don't really have a duration-esque option either so they HAVE to be separated by sustained vs alpha.

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

2. It's not just a given that bigger launchers--at the cost of tonnage & slot efficiency in most cases--is more effective for the tonnage because that increased effectiveness also comes at the cost of increased tonnage; you don't just get that effectiveness for free and that skews the equation in a way that makes it not cut & dry.

3. If it was a concern for the build then the tonnage (and/or slots) gained from smaller launchers could be used for more heatsinks potentially, while still keeping that lower cooldown, so I think you're oversimplifying it a bit.

If you make LRM20s as accurate as LRM5s, LRM20s will be the goto LRM because while they have a higher initial tonnage cost, they make up for it with being more heat efficient because 4 LRMs + DHS ends up taking up more space than a single LRM20 and is actually hotter, all for the ability to shoot faster (which at that point they end up having less sustained firepower than the LRM20 and are more burst oriented)? That's also ignoring ghost heat limits, which currently would allow you to also slap another 20 on and get a bigger alpha AND have better sustained DPS.

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

Hardly a worthwhile difference, especially not at the cost of sustained fire which you callously dismiss

The only problem is you would have to make the LRM5 fire faster and be cooler to make it more oriented towards sustained fire, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what mechs will most likely be using it (smaller mechs that don't have the tonnage to abuse larger launchers who don't really do well with sustained fire). I "callously" dismiss it because it doesn't make sense to have the weapon that is typically the least heat efficient to be about sustained fire. It would also require some redoing of missile hardpoints so that heavier mechs besides the ARC-5W could even take advantage of that sustained fire.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 03:51 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 03:50 PM, said:

Except those don't have the same range, which is why that comparison makes no sense. The Light PPC/PPC/Heavy PPC comparison makes more sense because they have the same effective role and range and are just different sizes of each other (much like the LRM family), but even that isn't quite right given they don't really have a duration-esque option either so they HAVE to be separated by sustained vs alpha.

That was my confusion as well. If you were referring to ultra, non-ultra, rotary, etcetera ACs of the same caliber then that makes more sense, but it wasn't 100% clear what you meant hence the confusion.

Quote

If you make LRM20s as accurate as LRM5s, LRM20s will be the goto LRM because while they have a higher initial tonnage cost, they make up for it with being more heat efficient because 4 LRMs + DHS ends up taking up more space than a single LRM20 and is actually hotter, all for the ability to shoot faster (which at that point they end up having less sustained firepower than the LRM20 and are more burst oriented)? That's also ignoring ghost heat limits, which currently would allow you to also slap another 20 on and get a bigger alpha AND have better sustained DPS.

That still just sounds like tradeoffs to me, and additionally as I've said numerous times in this thread you can't cram LRM20 effectively into every single mech anyways because of missile hardpoint sizes.

Unless you're telling me that LRM20 would be the only launcher ever used on any given mech, or that mechs would be bypassed for LRMs because they can't fit LRM20, then I'm just not seeing it as a problem like you do because there are multiple factors to consider that I've brought up, and not to mention it's a considerably more simple solution to just tighten the spread and then leave the rest of it alone more or less.

As far as I can tell this is just a point to agree to disagree on now; I do understand your point but you keep undermining the usefulness of the smaller launchers and I clearly don't agree with that.

As far as ghost heat my argument for that is to remove it because ghost heat is crap; not much else to say there.

Quote

The only problem is you would have to make the LRM5 fire faster and be cooler to make it more oriented towards sustained fire, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what mechs will most likely be using it (smaller mechs that don't have the tonnage to abuse larger launchers who don't really do well with sustained fire). I "callously" dismiss it because it doesn't make sense to have the weapon that is typically the least heat efficient to be about sustained fire. It would also require some redoing of missile hardpoints so that heavier mechs besides the ARC-5W could even take advantage of that sustained fire.

You could just boat less missiles to compensate for the increased fire rate?

I'm not going to dwell on it heavily because those are the consequences of your idea, not mine.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 January 2017 - 09:30 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 09:29 PM, said:

Unless you're telling me that LRM20 would be the only launcher ever used on any given mech

What mech can't that is going to be a reliable missile boat in the first place? Even a Vindi could use head TAG and an LRM20 with small laser backup. The only mech I can think of that can't actually use an LRM20 due to the extra weight is a light, and right now LRM lights are a joke and aren't really enough of a reason to make LRM5s that less potent in comparison to larger LRM launcher, especially given how few lights can even take 4 LRM5s vs an LRM20 (the Oxide is the only light that could take a 4 LRM5s).

Pjwned, on 19 January 2017 - 09:29 PM, said:

You could just boat less missiles to compensate for the increased fire rate?

The extra DPS you could potentially gain from that will never be worth the loss in concentrated packet damage. If a weapon is doing 75% of the damage per burst, it needs to have around a 133-150% increase in DPS to start to be worth it.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 January 2017 - 09:44 PM.

[Lances107]

I am far from the best player, but I understand the flaws of the LRM. If you fix it to target enemy components, then there is no longer a point for any other weapon. You send your alpha in to lock targets and bam you win. The game would turn into purely LRM wars. That is the primary problem with doing such a change.

In the elite field of fighting were units take on other units in invasions. LRMS are not used because they are not worth the weight or the spread damage they do. The amount of weight you would have to chew up, to have enough LRMS to actually be able to do something in a invasion would be allot. So obviously no unit commander wants there stars set up with LRMS.

Now comes the obvious problem, the players, who refuse to read and learn about the game. I spend a decent amount of time talking to my unit and other people to learn and figure things out. My point is say they fix the weight problem, every bad pilot from here to the other side of the galaxy will be running LRMs with no clue on how to use them effectively, and support there lance.

So if they do anything with LRMS, it should be reducing its weight, and allow only those who are in tier 3, 2, or 1 to use them in quick play. People can use them at will during invasions if they choose too. Target a specific component? Lets not shall we? As that would nagate half the weapons in the game overnight. Why brawl? When you can take the other guys right torso out with LRMS, and then his center torso.

After learning these drawbacks of the LRMs I did find a effective use for them in quick play, and that was a limited number with some ammo. Drawing up the rear of my lance but still right with them in the front lines, targeting enemies at 500 meters away, for close support. As I said the weight cost is not worth it, and your better picking up srm 6s.

Edited by Lances107, 19 January 2017 - 09:50 PM.

[Pjwned]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 January 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

What mech can't that is going to be a reliable missile boat in the first place? Even a Vindi could use head TAG and an LRM20 with small laser backup. The only mech I can think of that can't actually use an LRM20 due to the extra weight is a light, and right now LRM lights are a joke and aren't really enough of a reason to make LRM5s that less potent in comparison to larger LRM launcher, especially given how few lights can even take 4 LRM5s vs an LRM20 (the Oxide is the only light that could take a 4 LRM5s).

Well, for one thing I'm not just thinking in terms of LRM boats exclusively.

But as an example, the HBK-4J is known for its missile hardpoints and has been known to boat LRMs, yet the missile hardpoints can only fire 10 missiles at once.

Quote

The extra DPS you could potentially gain from that will never be worth the loss in concentrated packet damage. If a weapon is doing 75% of the damage per burst, it needs to have around a 133-150% increase in DPS to start to be worth it.

It's still a consideration if your build is lacking in other areas, like top speed or if you want more non-LRM weapons, because the loss in concentrated damage is at least partially made up with the lower cooldowns.

Is that good enough considering the weight & slot advantages (in most cases) as well? You seem to think it's not, and while I'm not absolutely certain, I'm more inclined to think it is.