135 replies to this topic

[DavidStarr]

Snazzy Dragon, on 20 February 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Mechs sitting at 900 meters with 4 lrm 5s missing 90% of their missiles with 90% of their armor intact are pointless too.

So there really is no problem with IDF? What are we arguing about then?

[BustedHipGaming]

This thread reminds me of all the topics on the World of Tanks forums endlessly whining like little crybabies about artillery till it got nerfed and nerfed and nerfed because some players were butthurt from being shot by it.

[Andi Nagasia]

Drewbicus, on 13 March 2017 - 09:37 AM, said:

This thread reminds me of all the topics on the World of Tanks forums endlessly whining like little crybabies about artillery till it got nerfed and nerfed and nerfed because some players were butthurt from being shot by it.

how so? maybe some but defiantly not all,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 13 March 2017 - 09:54 AM.

[p0ck3t5]

An experiment:
Go into the testing grounds with an IS mech armed with an LRM20, a single Medium Laser, a single SSRM2, a single AC5, and 2 tons of ammo for each weapon that requires ammo. Make sure you can actually fire all of the LRMs in a single volley; breaking it into smaller pieces because of fewer LRM holes will skew the results. Try this ON1-M, for example: Orion M .

Find an "enemy" 'mech. Position your 'mech 250 meters from it, with both 'mechs facing each other directly.

Fire your Medium Laser at the target (theoretically, 5 damage).
Fire your AC5 at the target (theoretically, 5 damage).
Fire a single volley of Streaks at the target (theoretically, 4 damage).
Launch a single volley of LRMs at your target (theoretically, 22 damage).

The things I want you to consider, for this exercise:
Did it look/feel like the LRMs did more than 4 times as much damage as the other weapons?
Did it even look/feel like they did an *equal* amount of damage, compared to any of the other weapons?

Think about the fact that the LRM20 used over 220 pounds (1 ton = 2,000 pounds) of ammunition to do that (20 of the 180 units of ammunition per ton). Consider that the AC5 used 66 pounds of ordinance (1/30), and the streaks used 40 pounds (2/100). The laser used no ammo at all.

Consider, too, the heat output of each of those weapons:
1 heat for the AC5
2 heat for the SSRM2
4 heat for Medium Laser
6 heat for the LRM20.

Now consider the tonnage and critical slots required for each of these weapons, ignoring ammo completely.
Medium Laser: 1 ton + 1 slot.
SSRM2: 1.5 tons + 1 slot.
AC5: 8 tons + 4 slots.
LRM20: 10 tons + 5 slots.

Now let's look at projectile speed:
Medium Laser: instant.
AC5: 1300m/s.
SSRM2: 200m/s.
LRM20: 160m/s.

Keep in mind that the LRM20 is the hottest, heaviest, most ammo-intensive weapon of these 4 as you progress through the rest of this Wall'o'Text.

Experiment, phase 2:
Start a new testing grounds. Find the Atlas. Position yourself facing the Atlas, with the Atlas facing you, 250 meters away. Aim at the center torso, preferably at a point you can remember (for repeating this exercise with the other weapons). Using nothing but the LRM20, count how many volleys are required to kill the Atlas.

Repeat this exercise for each of the 4 weapon systems, counting how many "trigger pulls" are required for each weapon to "core" the Atlas. For weapons with ammunition, note the amount of ammunition required. If unable to kill the target due to running out of ammo, note the remaining health of the target (the percentage listed to the upper-left of the target's "big red box").

My numbers, using the Orion I linked above as my test 'mech:

Medium Laser: killed the Atlas in 37 shots, ~185 damage, 0 rounds, 0.000 tons of ammo used
AC5: killed the Atlas in 37 shots, ~185 damage, 37 rounds, 1.233 tons of ammo used
SSRM2: failed to kill the Atlas, 62% health remaining.
100 shots, ~400 damage, 200 rounds, 2.000 tons of ammo used
LRM20: failed to kill the Atlas, 69% health remaining.
18 shots, ~396 damage, 360 rounds, 2.000 tons of ammo used

Thought exercise:
Would you rather be hit with an IS LRM20 at 500 meters, or an IS AC20 at the same range?
Why do you feel that way?

Conclusion:
As implemented in-game currently, LRMs are severely crippled compared to the tabletop game. They require more heat, more tonnage, and more ammo than any other weapon producing an equivalent amount of damage, and they don't actually achieve the damage of those "equivalent" weapons. They require more time to reach their target (3 seconds to target at 500m), and all of that time is spent facing the target. Torso-twist away to spread incoming damage, lose the lock, waste your ammo failing to hit the target.

Despite all of this, LRMs are singularly reviled as a weapon system, and players wail and gnash their teeth about how OP they are, as well as calling their users lazy cowards. Lately, I have even found solo queue players deliberately dropping their locks when they see the "incoming missiles" icon on their targets, destroying even the hope of indirect fire with their salty behavior. LRM users are called cowards for not wanting to expose themselves to enemy fire for 5-9 seconds to have even a chance of dealing any damage, called lazy for asking other players to obtain locks on the targets those players are already shooting at, and in general appear to be considered scum of the earth for using what is actually no more than half the weapon that LRMs are in tabletop, objectively and reasonably these weapons do something like a third of the damage in at least twice the time of any weapon a quarter their size in this game.

Why the LRM hate?
I believe it is due to the huge cockpit warning logo and Betty's incessant bleating for the entire flight time of a locked missile's transit, turning an LRM5 fired at max range into a weapon of terror, rather than mass destruction. As a missile boater, myself, I will often uselessly fire a single weapon's payload at an enemy 2000+ meters away, just to make the pilot sweat for 6 or 8 seconds; if he's seeking cover, he's probably not dealing effectively with my teammate who locked him. If not otherwise occupied, I'll launch a volley at him from the other end of the map every 5 to 6 seconds, just to keep his head down.

The psychological effect of a locked missile far outweighs the damage it can do, even if every single missile in the volley hit - and if you've performed the experiment above, you know that they don't, even when fired from a stationary position against a stationary target a mere 250m away. Remove the screaming warning, or enable it only for AMS-equipped mechs (perhaps even toning it down in this circumstance), and largely remove that psychological damage. Perhaps if the mindgames were removed from the weapon, it would be acceptable to achieve a kill with less than an entire ton of ammo thrown at an enemy. I wish I were exaggerating. I can hit with 2 full volleys of 5xLRM15 on my STK-5M, and watch a medium mech shrug it off and run away. Not unscathed, of course, but not looking like they just took 10 Gauss rounds, 15 PPC strikes, or 30 medium laser hits worth of damage, either (the equivalent amount of damage according to the weapons tables).

Again, there's an awful lot of hate for this weapon system that appears to be largely undeserved when one considers how much damage it actually does, compared to other weapons that supposedly do equivalent damage.

TL;DR: Nerf cockpit LRM alarms.
I would support a "nerf" of removing the cockpit warnings, just to see if it reduced the hate directed at users of LRMs... at the very least from their own teammates.

Edited by p0ck3t5, 16 March 2017 - 02:38 PM.

[Threat Doc]

The LRM system presently in use is precisely how it should be. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a system, involved with the new Pilot Skill Trees/Tech Trees where LRM speed, accuracy, spread, etc. could all be improved, much like with the vaunted laser and autocannon weaponry. LRMs really do NOT get a fair shake in this game, either in-use or in statistics for determining their usefulness, but I think some of that could be mitigated if they got some fair treatment on the Skill Trees.

[Threat Doc]

p0ck3t5, on 16 March 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

ALL the LRM goodness!!!

Pockets, you are absolutely right in everything you said in your post. For the longest time I've not been able to figure out why there's so much hate for LRMs, either, and I agree the in-cockpit warnings need to be removed entirely and impulse should be increased so that LRM drivers actually have a place on the battlefield, again.

[The Lobsters]

Bush Hopper, on 25 February 2017 - 01:18 AM, said:

A weapon system with

a. easy accessible auto-lock
b. supresses movement to a degree where 2-3 missiles boats simply forces mindless peek-a-boo gameplay

is simply mind boggling in a shooter.

Not so mind boggling in a tactical mech sim.though.

[Khobai]

Quote

a. easy accessible auto-lock
b. supresses movement to a degree where 2-3 missiles boats simply forces mindless peek-a-boo gameplay

umm MWO is a mindless peek-a-boo game without LRMs.

so LRMs arnt the problem.

the problem is long-range direct fire weapons dominating the meta

PGI has made sniping with direct fire weapons way too effective. Its not countered enough by brawling like it should be. You take too much damage by the time you close into brawling range.

A healthy meta would be a meta that has sniping and brawling in almost equal proportions. a large part of why lrms struggle is the lack of brawling. more brawling would help lrms because locks would get held better.

Thats specifically why the cooldowns on long range weapons like ERPPC and Gauss were much longer in other mechwarrior games like MW4. So other mechs had a chance to get into brawling distance in between cooldowns. Not saying longer cooldowns are the solution for MWO, just saying thats how MW4 handled it. But MWO somehow needs to end the dominance of sniping builds and bring parity to brawling builds. Which should in theory also help fix LRMs.

Edited by Khobai, 18 March 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[LuInRei]

Khobai, on 18 March 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

umm MWO is a mindless peek-a-boo game without LRMs.

so LRMs arnt the problem.

the problem is long-range direct fire weapons dominating the meta

PGI has made sniping with direct fire weapons way too effective. Its not countered enough by brawling like it should be. You take too much damage by the time you close into brawling range.

Also, just a side note that this is the issue of Gauss and ERPPCs having every possible advantage in damage application and exposure time.

There are other long rande options like ERLL, light ACs, but they are much more dangerous to use and don't provide as much of a concentrated punch as ERPPCs and Gauss do.

LRMs are almost unapplicable at long ranges due to travel time, map areas with vertical cover,
radar deprivation, ECM.
Even if you manage to land a hit it's still scattered all over the enemy which makes it a lot less threatening than landing a PPC shot.
Combine it with boating, mltiplying individual weapon advantages and we get to the core issue of MWO.
Certain weapons just are too dominant, posessing too many upsides to consider using alternative options.


Removing indirect fire from LRMs now will just terminate their only upside and phase them out of the game entirely.

To make them a viable long range option we can, for example, increase projectile speed and decrease lock-on speed, allow more control over their attack angle. Damage-wise I think LRMs are in a spot
(even though they are too ammo and heat inefficient) that they don't opress brawling as PPCs and Gauss Rifles do.

Also, considering future release of Laser AMS, LRMs might be driven entirely into joke weapon cathegory.

Edited by LuInRei, 18 March 2017 - 11:17 PM.

[Nutta88]

JediPanther, on 25 February 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

Make it visible under thermal and night vision. I'm not going to stand with a light mech waving around a -here-i-am sign.

Would go for this so tag doesn't show your location all the time...

I think that indirect lrm should have a silly spread especially at extreme range, to make it that direct or assisted is almost the only way you would want to use them.

They also should have an stated effective and max range... so say 630m effective and 1000m or whatever for max... with again spread issues past max.

So with line of sight with art, tag and narc would be scary at 600m, while at 900m and just indirect have them sprinkle over every component.

[Weeny Machine]

The Lobsters, on 18 March 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

Not so mind boggling in a tactical mech sim.though.

Yeah, then I wonder why there are no THUNDER and SWARM LRMs. They would fit soooo well in a tactical mech sim. Hazard a guess...

Also, how things are handled currently, it is as if each and every mech would be a part of a C3 system

Edited by Bush Hopper, 19 March 2017 - 05:03 AM.

[Threat Doc]

I like the ideas that have been written here, now, about indirect fire being more spread out beyond so many meters, to the point where it's not terribly effective, and then direct fire with exigent factors adding to a rack's ability to hit making it a scary proposition. But, yes, projectile speed would need to be increased markedly and spread would have to be almost zero for those direct fire moments. Unfortunately, as with two games I had last night, anyone who dislikes LRMs actually act as large children, crying, bitching, moaning, and complaining about it, in effect throwing a temper-tantrum. No matter what is done to LRMs, these people will continue this highly unusual and illogical behavior.

However, whether the behavior is going to stop or not, LRMs will always be a part of the game, the only indirect fire weapon available to HELP a team of muggles who do not understand what sort of weapon they are, and they not only fail to utilize LRM 'Mechs to help them, they actively work against LRM 'Mechs in the game. Children. So, if direct fire is changed to be deadlier, and indirect fire made less deadly, my recommendation is two-fold...

1) When it comes to LRM 'Mechs, those who are in close-contact with an opponent automatically mark the target after the first couple of hits, as the game is, already, and then this lock does not go away until the 'Mech(s) actually leave(s) the area, and

2) For each 'Mech facing against that target, the quality of the indirect lock is improved, from a weak lock that fails to group LRMs together very well, all the way to the direct fire state with almost no LRM spread at all.

This would stop the childish behavior of these direct-fire folks who hate LRMs, regardless of which side they're on, and it would adjust effectiveness for LRM drivers to a more realistic level, where direct fire would be preferred, but not the only mode of fire available. Remember, what was said earlier about the Clans using LRMs in a direct fire mode only is true, but they're used indirect by Inner Sphere for the simple truth of modern warfare... it's better to bomb the crap out of the bad guys than risk troops. That is not dishonorable, weak, or "easy mode", it's common sense, and those who despise LRMs are denying themselves the ability to win because they're too damn stupid to realize the treasure trove they have.

Or, should I say troveS? Each of the drops I've played since I returned I have noticed there is no shortage of LRM boats, at least three sources of LRMs, including my own, in every game.

[MauttyKoray]

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

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,

Been a long time coming, but yeah. LRMs need multiple changes for direct/indirect fire.

i.e.

Indirect
No tag/narc - Loose spread, tracks less accuractely.
tag/narc - Loose spread, tracks somewhat accurately.

Direct
no tag/narc - Tighter spread than indirect, tracks somewhat accurately
tag/narc - Tigther spread than indirect, tracks fairly accurately.
w/ Artemis - Tightest spread, tracks fairly accurately, tracks the best when combined with tag/narc.

With those changes I believe it would be viable to adjust the weapon based around performing useful support fire while also not losing viability in LoS mid-range fights. Among other balances, this would give a reason to possibly change up some stats, maybe a slower fire rate, more damage, or even left as it is. The biggest problem imo is that the only modifiers that LRMs have are the current artemis which simply tightens spread in LoS, and the TAG/Narc only being a lock-on enabler.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 19 March 2017 - 11:41 AM.

[The Lobsters]

MauttyKoray, on 19 March 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

Been a long time coming, but yeah. LRMs need multiple changes for direct/indirect fire.

i.e.

Indirect
No tag/narc - Loose spread, tracks less accuractely.
tag/narc - Loose spread, tracks somewhat accurately.

Direct
no tag/narc - Tighter spread than indirect, tracks somewhat accurately
tag/narc - Tigther spread than indirect, tracks fairly accurately.
w/ Artemis - Tightest spread, tracks fairly accurately, tracks the best when combined with tag/narc.

With those changes I believe it would be viable to adjust the weapon based around performing useful support fire while also not losing viability in LoS mid-range fights. Among other balances, this would give a reason to possibly change up some stats, maybe a slower fire rate, more damage, or even left as it is. The biggest problem imo is that the only modifiers that LRMs have are the current artemis which simply tightens spread in LoS, and the TAG/Narc only being a lock-on enabler.

What you have described is basically how it works now.

The only changes here would be making direct fire without tag/narc/artemis track better than indirect fired missiles, and that narc should stack with artemis.

So, a built in artemis, + artemis + tag + narc.

That sound's really sexy, but terribly op, which would probably urge pgi to blanket nerf lrm's so the bottom end of them falls of the scale.

4 x lrm 10 with tag and artemis, does roughly 6.5 times the dps/m2, than 2 x lrm 20 fired indirectly or without artemis, with the way area calculations go.

Dps/m2 is important with lrm's if you want to hit the CT and kill stuff. That difference is already a big incentive to get los. Some people will just never want to do that no matter how big a buff/nerf pgi want hand out.

[SolasTau]

I'd bet that it's been mentioned, but the average speed of existing surface to surface missiles is around 260m/s.

In spite of BT's odd 'dark age' era of technology, I would expect their missiles would still be superior to ours.

It's also important to consider how useless LRM's presently are. It's not to say you can't and won't be pounded into dust by them EVENTUALLY, but generally speaking, LRM fire is so ineffective that you can ignore it *unless* you are being attacked by other sources. What takes me 30-40 seconds with an LRM 40 takes most PPC/Gauss snipers 2-3 well placed shots.

Do 10 drops as an LRM player vs your play style. Watch as everyone breaks your locks instantaneously with radar derp, your missiles do lame damage to the targets you actually manage to hit, and your missiles act so idiotically you find yourself risking your lock JUST so they'll actually fire in a ballistic trajectory.

[Novakaine]

Absolutely no.
I never understand why people are intent of further nerf the worst weapon system in the game.
Seriously just stop.

[AphexTwin11]

I don't understand why this is even a poll - why is it that LRMs need changing? can someone explain that one to me?

[Threat Doc]

Aphex, LRMs are way out of their league, here. If you're an LRM guy and you face off against any Light 'Mech with a pair of machine guns, you might as well hang it up. Their speed is entirely too slow, the indirect fire mechanics are okay, but you cannot stand out in direct fire without being absolutely slaughtered. The problem is there are a bunch of whiney babies in this community, regardless of what tier you play in, who will not help anyone who prefers to drive with LRMs. We LRM drivers are called skill-less and dishonorable and cowards when we're trying to support our team, and all because we're not up shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the front-line. Thinking like that was done in the times when armies stood in blocks of rank and file and shot at one-another, from a stopped position, across an open field. Those who cannot accept LRMs are cave-men who prefer to use brute force over tactics; that's just idiotic.

Anyway, LRMs don't need to be NERF'd, they need to be set back to a level where they are used competitively, again. 280m/s speed, I'm there, larger spread for indirect and smaller for direct, I'm there, 1.0 damage for LRMs and 2.0 for SRMs, I'm there, knocking off some of the garbage we have to put up with, such as in-cockpit missile warnings -when LRMs are the least damaging weapon in the game-, Radar Deprivation and the like, I'm there.

I don't believe I have to be a ballistics and lasers gun monkey to do the job that is designed to suppress the enemy, not kill them, to hold them in place while my "team" mates -which is an utterly laughable concept, right now, considering PGI does NOT support teams or team work in the least- get into position to smash the hell out of them.

Having read everything I've read, here, I have to concede my earlier comment, about LRMs being just fine, was pretty dumb to say on my part. They're not just fine at all, they're pretty bork'd, and PGI needs to fix them so they are a competitive system, again. The whiney babies be damned.

[Andi Nagasia]

AphexTwin11, on 22 March 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I don't understand why this is even a poll - why is it that LRMs need changing? can someone explain that one to me?

well as most people that have Voted feel LOS fire should be Buffed, this is a topic about buffing LRMs

[AphexTwin11]

Andi Nagasia, on 22 March 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

well as most people that have Voted feel LOS fire should be Buffed, this is a topic about buffing LRMs

Oh is that what it this topic is about?!?!?

Yes I know what the topic is about.

I'm asking why is this even a thing. To which, Threat Doc answered in a meaningful way.

Edited by AphexTwin11, 23 March 2017 - 04:55 AM.