135 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

as the Topic States,
would you support


=Removing LRMs Ability to Fire Indirectly=
in this Case you would no longer be able to Fire LRMs indirectly,
(use of Utility Such as Tag, NARC and UAV would be the Exception)
perhaps adding in C3(1Crit 1Ton) to MWO would help balance this,
-
this may also improve Light Roles,
as Lights would be Needed to allow Indirect fire,
aiding Role Warfare and giving lights more use,


or
=Buff LRMs when use with LOS(LineOfSight)=
the compromise would be keeping Indirect Fire but Buffing LRMs when shot with LineOfSight,
this could be a Spread Buff or a Velocity Buff, and then balanced accordingly,


=(Poll)=

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Spelling,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 February 2017 - 04:15 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

This improvement could be anything,
1) Decreased LRM Spread,
2) Increase LRM Velocity,
3) ect,

what are your Thoughts?
what would you like to see Changed with LRMs if this happened?

[WolvesX]

Would be SLRM direct fire weapons?

[Cabusha3]

They'd definitely need a velocity buff to make up for the lack of IDF ability. SRMS are already too slow past 150 meters, LRMs would be even worse. Buff their velocity, maybe their spread, and we can talk.

[Lupis Volk]

If anything i'd rather have them be replaced by MRM's.

[Snowbluff]

LRMs shouldn't be in the game without IDF. They are pointless otherwise.

[C0R]

I would like this, but Tag would need a lingering effect to prevent flickering, possibly it could become something that just happens when an equipped mech is locked on so the light can still torso twist.

[SQW]

Keep the current indirect fire but give LOS lrm locks a huge boost in lock time, flight speed and reduced spread (more than Artemis does currently) and people might start use it more than long range artillery. I don't care how PGI justifies the increase in speed but probably along the line of why LBX doesn't have dual ammo.

Or as an indirect method of making current LRM good, boost C-bill, xp reward on Narc/Tag so more than the half dozen people that than myself in MWO will actually run it as their regular loadout. I like running with back-line LRM boats because I run a Narc Raven so to me, there's no such thing as a potato lrm boat.

[jjm1]

This is my compromise to nuking them from orbit:

Lower their arc,
remove target decay,
maybe increase their speed (perhaps even by a lot) (which should decrease their vectoring speed and accuracy vs moving targets),
put a limit on the maximum number of LRM tubes a team can bring
matchmaker considers LRM counts in its quick play sorting algorithm so teams are evenly gimped by them.

[Tarogato]

They should have poorer tracking with indirect fire. Like... a LOT poorer tracking. But should have better direct fire tracking so that they're actually useful.

[Battlemaster56]

I wouldn't say remove inderiect fire, but making the track and spread terrible when you don't have los on the target, if an ally have tag or narc it would increase tracking.

Direct fire should have better tracking and spread, and fine a way to encourage players to use it as direct fire weapon, when needed.

[Weeny Machine]

Personally, I'd welcome a curbing of the indirect fire capability. Under certain conditions (e.g. maps etc) the supression part is hilarious. You cannot take one step without having to run into cover or it is even outright deadly on maps like Polar. It is also another nail in the coffin for lights because if you do not break off your attack run at once you are screwed

I think it should be done like that:

1. Indirect fire
No indirect fire. However, when a target got tagged for a certain time (or NARCed) inidrect fire should be possible. I would even go so far as to give the LRMs in this case a fire & forget mechanic. This would balance the effort you have to undertake to get the IF option.

2. Direct fire
Direct fire missile flight speed should be increased and spread reduced. If this isn't done, the whole weapon system is dead in the water.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 19 February 2017 - 12:46 AM.

[Koniving]

Andi Nagasia, on 18 February 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

I voted no. However...
There was no option to take the lore friendly route of IS goes indirect, Clan goes direct.

Allow me to elaborate:

It is very noteworthy that through infantry spotters, vehicle support, and the assistance of scout 'Mechs, that the Inner Sphere made very frequent use of indirect fire for LRMs. In fact, the 1980s lore specifically states that (IS) LRMs were always fired at a ballistic launch angle (hence the 180m minimum accurate range, if the missiles are already going at an upward incline straight from the launcher they would have a hard time yawing downward at a target that is closer than that range; this is also why the 1980s MLRS system (from stats of which the Catapult was conceived and the very method of 30 meter hexes was even contrived for the original Battle Droids board game before it became BattleTech) has a minimum accurate range (of 180 miles).



On the other hand, according to that same source material, the Clans lacked that 180m minimum accurate range (by minimum accurate range, I mean both the IS and the Clans could do full damage if they hit a target at less than 180 meters!!! Just it was pretty dang hard for the IS to do as there was a penalty to your potential accuracy or chance to hit). But this came at an obvious cost, Clan mentality shunned on and forbade the use of LRMs for indirect fire.

---------

I am aware that through a completely new company that owned Battletech in the late 90s that this lore was changed to a minimum arming range to allow for the hot loaded trait... This also came with the caveat that hot loaded LRMs could explode in the launcher when crit... and that Clan LRMs were always hot loaded and at risk of exploding when crit. I imagine players would favor this less than the lore I'd rather push for.
---
In other words, we can try removing indirect fire as well as removing the minimum range damages reductions.

For the IS, they keep their indirect fire, get permitted to deliver damage at less than 180 meters but at less than 180 meters, the missiles will be hard pressed to go after the intended target and many will likely overshoot the target as the missiles go high into the air. Maybe even like this, minus the spread.

Spoiler

For the Clans, they get that "exponential damage reduction" removed so they do full damage, the 'arc' removed so that the LRMs will fly reasonably low (but not too low, so they won't outright replace SRMs or be outright superior to IS MRMs) and have indirect fire removed completely without the use of TAG or NARC. Under no circumstances should the Clans have an identical high-arc downward-impact to the IS.
(The Clans are not supposed to hide and thus IS tech should be able to flush them out so that they do not hide... meanwhile the IS is known for using 'cowardly' tactics such as ambushes, pop-and-squat cover and so on for fighting, and so Clan tech should have ways of reducing it but not outright stopping it. After all, Clans have the long range advantage for most weapons and the IS need ways to semi-safely get in close, while the Clans need to find ways to deal with this 'unusual' problem.)

For both sides: Increase missile velocity to 1.5x that of SRMs at minimum, but reduce missile course corrective agility (meaning that LRMs will have a harder time making unplanned turns so that the missiles -- as fast as they are depicted in the thing above -- could still be dodged even if using cover would be nearly worthless. This combined with the IS having indirect fire will allow LRMs to help flush out 'stale mates' for the IS side so that Clanners hiding at long range will have to move out of good spots. For the Clans who will likely be using LRMs much closer, this means that LRMs will not be able to replace Streak missiles as a longer range faster firing higher overall damage alternative. Leave good to decent course correction on Artemis to increase its importance and value as it adds a ton regardless of which side you're on.

*Possibly reduce indirect targeting/locks to NARC or TAG-acquired enemy signatures.


--------------

Key notes:
The MRM is an Inner Sphere tech. With the provisions given above, the MRM has a perfect place between direct fire SRMs and up-and-over indirect fire LRMs.
The Clans, whom do NOT get MRMs, have direct fire LRMs that can behave similarly to MRMs.

Provides further balancing for missile weight differences.
Preserves and enhances the unique flavor of each side.
Increases the value of the scouting/spotting role.
Increases the value of Artemis without destroying the value of LRMs without Artemis.
Ensures MRMs have a tangible role in the game.

---
A final note: I predict the argument that the Clanners may use their LRMs like guided SRMs...

Funny thing about that, SRMs, they have limited guidance and therefore are NOT unguided missiles. That's Dead Fire SRMs and LRMs, a type of ammo. So yes, MRMs do have a place, and Clan LRMs will not be replacing Clan SRMs.


Mkay. I made my case.

Edited by Koniving, 19 February 2017 - 08:24 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

By the way, to fire indirectly in BT you needed a spotter. Just saying...

[Sixpack]

What about AMS?

If LRMs get a velocity buff AMS will need to be buffed. And if AMS gets buffed we might need to recheck SRMs and streaks.

[Guile Votoms]

I think the main problem doesn't lie with LRMs but radar.

A system like in Living Legends would be nice: http://wiki.mechlivi...php?title=Radar

[Lykaon]

Bush Hopper, on 19 February 2017 - 01:47 AM, said:

By the way, to fire indirectly in BT you needed a spotter. Just saying...

You do know that in MWo LRM indirect fire also REQUIRES a spotter?

In order to fire indirectly someone/thing must "see" the intended target.

[Siegegun]

This is a terrible idea. As all such similar ideas, this will make LRMs almost useless. This idea seems to just convert LRM to MRM. I personally would not have designed the LRM system as it is, however this is what we have. Changing LRM missile to MRM does not solve anything.

These ideas are all moot anyway, PGI is not going to change the LRM mechanics.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Truly bad idea that would effectively remove LRMs from the game. Why not just say you want the game dumbed down to a point and click shooter for teenagers?

[Metus regem]

LRM's need to keep their indirect mode. That being said, it should be a toggle option, direct fire allows for faster speed and lower spread. Indirect would require third party information, now since we already have sensor sharing (a key part of C3), being a spotter is already covered there, LRM's in indirect mode would have a slower speed and worse spread than direct fire.