135 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Guile Votoms, on 19 February 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

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

THa'ts not a ******* radar. RADARS DON'T WORK THAT WAY.

[RAM]

Low angle vs High angle fire & flight times...


RAM
ELH

[Snowbluff]

Koniving, on 19 February 2017 - 01:31 AM, said:

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

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.

These ideas are bad, but worse if SLRMs are coming out.

[Andi Nagasia]

WolvesX, on 18 February 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

Would be SLRM direct fire weapons?

no because LRMs can still fire when aided by NARC, Tag, and UAV,
Streak LRMs have no Indirect fire At all, not even aided indirect fire,

Lupis Volk, on 18 February 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

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

MRMs are Dumb Fire missiles, LRMs would still be lockon with LOS,
MRMs act very much like SRMs with large Tube Counts(1Damage/Missile) and streamfired,

Snowbluff, on 18 February 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

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

im not saying completely remove indirect fire, im saying give NARC & Tag, as well as lights, More Use,
in BattleTech you had to have the C3 system, which allows indirect fire(besides NARC and Tag)
we have Built in C3 in mwo, but it could easily be added as it is Equipment,(1Crit, 1Ton)

C0R, on 18 February 2017 - 10:56 PM, said:

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.

i agree, i think Tag should give 3seconds lock on time to better help the system,

SQW, on 18 February 2017 - 11:17 PM, said:

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.

Battlemaster56, on 19 February 2017 - 12:33 AM, said:

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.

Bush Hopper, on 19 February 2017 - 12:45 AM, said:

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.

these could work as well, just something that will help bring LRMs up from where they are,
right now LRMs are weak because they are too easy to use indirectly and not good enough to use directly,
take too long to reach their target and missile warning insures Targets will most likely get to cover at range,
(it will take 5seconds for LRMs to reach their Target at 500m because of their arch)
(800m which is most Mechs max Radar will take them 8-9seconds)

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

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

this is true, but also in BT you have the C3, want to make LRMs useful but not over powered,
release C3 as equipment(1Crit 1Ton(in lore)
-
make rewards for lights Carrying C3(as with it they can share their IFFs as so now)
so Light Mechs have a better Scouting role, and can be useful without raw damage,
(this would make LRMs viable in Comp Play, with out making them OP in Pug Play)

Sixpack, on 19 February 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

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.

i agree, AMS would need to be enhanced, but thats a simple fix as well,
if you decrease Spread with LRMs then AMS need not be changed as they are still viable vs them,
how ever if you increase LRM velosity you will need to increase AMS range,
(ex. if LRMs get +50% Speed, AMS would need to get +50%Range)

Guile Votoms, on 19 February 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

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

yes but MW:LL also works like this, you cant Fire LRMs on targets you dont have LOS on,
the only exeption is when a target is NARC'ed or Tag'ed,

Lykaon, on 19 February 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

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.

yes, but in this case everyone shares their IFF, which makes LRMs hard to balance,
as you can have a LRM boat hiding near the back of the map just firing LRMs all Match,
this is why LRMs get a bad name,
-
if C3(1Crit 1Ton) was added into MWO for it would change the feel of LRMs,
giving up a Ton on a light or medium is a hard choice for most lights and mediums,
i feel this would keep LRMs(with LOS buffs) useful in Low level play,
but also allow them to be viable in high level play as well,

Siegegun, on 19 February 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

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.

this keeps coming up over and over, MRMs are dumb fire like MWOs SRMs,
they are LargeTubeCount 1Damage/Missiles MediumRange(Probably Stream fired for Balance) Missiles,
LRMs would still be Lockon Missiles and still track the targets, so they wouldnt act like MRMs,

The Amazing Atomic Spaniel, on 19 February 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

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?

i also said such Indirect fire would still be possible with Tag / NARC and UAV, and LRMs would be Buffed,
you would still be able to indirect fire in situations where you have a designated Tag/NARC Light Spotter(Comp)
what you woundnt be able to do, is use newly Buffed LRMs to Spam Missiles at 800m wail your team fights(Pug),
i want LRMs to be good, and if Indirect fire is stopping them from being good, than indirect fire has to change,
Edit- Spelling,

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

[Koniving]

Snowbluff, on 19 February 2017 - 08:08 AM, said:

These ideas are bad, but worse if SLRMs are coming out.

How so?

Also, Streak LRMs much like Streak SRMs... should not be the physics defying weapons they are in MWO.
A streak is basically a regular LRM or SRM with a smart launcher that refuses to fire if it doesn't think it has a 90% chance to hit or greater. PGI created its own problem by making Streaks the way they are.
Here is what they used to be when players cried about how overpowered they were due to always going after the CT.


Bound Streaks by the laws of physics, allow them to have more turn than conventional LRMs. Problem solved.
If it really becomes an issue, Streak LRMs for the IS can be less inclined to go straight up then down on enemies, and Clan Streak LRMs can go slower.

Edited by Koniving, 19 February 2017 - 08:29 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Koniving, on 19 February 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

How so?

Also, Streak LRMs much like Streak SRMs... should not be the physics defying weapons they are in MWO.
A streak is basically a regular LRM or SRM with a smart launcher that refuses to fire if it doesn't think it has a 90% chance to hit or greater. PGI created its own problem by making Streaks the way they are.
Here is what they used to be when players cried about how overpowered they were due to always going after the CT.


Bound Streaks by the laws of physics, allow them to have more turn than conventional LRMs. Problem solved.
If it really becomes an issue, Streak LRMs for the IS can be less inclined to go straight up then down on enemies, and Clan Streak LRMs can go slower.

Bind them to the rules of physics, huh?

"SSRM can now make 20g turn."

Much more realistic for the ranges and level of technology we're talking about

[C E Dwyer]

I think you have the yes votes being people that can't use cover and want to stand stationary in the open, because I'm a L33T Playah.

and the No's being people that would have no fun if they were made direct fire only weapons.

P.G.I could of course implement this frankly bad suggestion if they want to make the game even harder for new starts to have fun, and reduce revenue to this game even more, and accelerate it's closure.

[Paigan]

The indirect fire is about the only thing that adds a different, tactically valueable weapon type.
Everyone who voted yes just doesn't know how to use one of the 4543523 LRM counters.

Indirect LRMs add tactical value:
Run out in the open like a mindless brawler (as most players are) and you get punished for it. As you should be.
Play tactical, use your brain and you (mostly, not always) laugh LRMs in the face.

Remove LRMs, and this becomes more and more just your random military-fetishist but in stomby robots instead of combats suits.

Honestly, making the poll in the first place is kind of ... "irritating".

[Battlemaster56]

Koniving, on 19 February 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

, Streak LRMs for the IS can be less inclined to go straight up then down on enemies, and Clan Streak LRMs can go slower.

IS don't have Streak-LRM's it's a Clan only weapon.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I have to disagree on the removal of indirect fire, as it eliminates a unique form of teamwork-based synergy.

[Andi Nagasia]

Cathy, on 19 February 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

I think you have the yes votes being people that can't use cover and want to stand stationary in the open, because I'm a L33T Playah.

and the No's being people that would have no fun if they were made direct fire only weapons.

P.G.I could of course implement this frankly bad suggestion if they want to make the game even harder for new starts to have fun, and reduce revenue to this game even more, and accelerate it's closure.

i dont think its fair to discredit others on how they voted such as this,
-
people that voted yes (can't use cover and want to stand stationary in the open)?
so people who voted yes, are new players or are Scrubs, that cant use their environment,
-
people that voted no (being people that would have no fun if they were made direct fire only weapons)?
i never said completely remove indirect fire, and also if your ONLY using LRMs as such your not using them fully,
LRMs can be fired over the heads of your allies with line of sight so i dont see where this is coming from,
-
saying that (New Starts) would find it harder if indirect fire was removed?
lots of new players complain about as being OP LRMs as many as those that are using LRMs,
i dont think this change would suddenly make the game die,

Paigan, on 19 February 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

The indirect fire is about the only thing that adds a different, tactically valueable weapon type.
Everyone who voted yes just doesn't know how to use one of the 4543523 LRM counters.

Indirect LRMs add tactical value:
Run out in the open like a mindless brawler (as most players are) and you get punished for it. As you should be.
Play tactical, use your brain and you (mostly, not always) laugh LRMs in the face.

Remove LRMs, and this becomes more and more just your random military-fetishist but in stomby robots instead of combats suits.

Honestly, making the poll in the first place is kind of ... "irritating".

its not about the counters, its about making LRMs viable in all levels of play,

perhaps a Buff to LOS(such as -30%Spread) would make LRMs better at more levels of play,
as such i have added the option in the Poll so people can choose such an option,

[Koniving]

Battlemaster56, on 19 February 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

IS don't have Streak-LRM's it's a Clan only weapon.

Good to know. This sort of furthers my question as to what is bad about the idea. It isn't like IS are going to have indirect fire Streaks, then. And yes, Streak LRMs are going to turn better (though for obvious reasons they should not have superior turning to Clan LRMs with Artemis, though going much slower that might not matter as much.). I'm not seeing how there is an issue with Clans being direct fire only and IS being able to indirect fire, even if both sides get the minimum range damage reduction removed.

If the issue is ammo, honestly LRMs are supposed to be 120 per ton while SRMs are 100... so it should never be 180 per ton in the first place.

[Koniving]

Snowbluff, on 19 February 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

Bind them to the rules of physics, huh?

"SSRM can now make 20g turn."

Much more realistic for the ranges and level of technology we're talking about

You failed to mention why it was a bad idea in the first place.

------

Current physics of Streaks.


Streaks can currently make a 180 degree turn without moving forward, and fly directly through the firing Mech's launcher and body in order to get to a target, even if the target is directly behind the firing 'Mech and standing at 5 meters away.

Currently, Streaks are capable of turns that are physically impossible, such as zero radius turns (stationary turns when firing backwards) as well as turns with such G-force that the missile should tear itself apart.

Streaks should - according to lore - have identical agility to standard missiles. The only difference between Streak missiles and standard ones is rather than standard guidance, they are rapidly given a pre-ordained flight path determined by the launcher to be the one with the highest possible chance for success. As such, technically they aren't even guided (which is why Beagle ECM does NOT affect Streaks at all in BT, and Angel ECM affects the launcher exclusively, not the missiles. When it comes to Artemis, Battletech Beagle ECM can affect the missiles while near the launcher, near the intended target, or ANYWHERE within 180 meters of the Artemis LRM/SRM's flight path. Angel ECM can do this, but in order to affect Streaks it MUST be near the launcher).

So my caveat of saying to let them have better agility than standard LRMs is actually just accepting that PGI will never give us Battletech-style ECM, and so the only way Streak LRMs will stand out and be used is if they track better than standard LRMs... but they need to be inferior to or comparable to Clan Artemis LRMs. They cannot be better.
Actually, it seems that Streak LRMs are unconditionally twice as heavy, so being slightly better than Artemis at agility is acceptable.

Edited by Koniving, 19 February 2017 - 10:32 AM.

[Steve Pryde]

What I would love ist that I can change the flight pattern to a more direct thing and if you fire them with line of sight that they become fire&forget so that I can twist my torso after firing them.

[Monkey Lover]

Nerf indirect, buff los. Turn lrms into a skill/team based weapon!

[Variant1]

Im gona go with remove indirect fire but keep it for equipment such as tag etc and lights.
As for direct fire: buff the speed and lower the arc so its high enough to shoot over mechs but not cover.
Allow the lrm user to target torsos or arms rather than it auto targeting the ct.
increase the lrm ammo per ton to 240 from 180.
after that now that lrm require equipment to fire indirectly, change ecm so it only works for the individual, with lrms requiring line of site to lock, the line of site lock should take 2x longer than normal lock.

edit: for direct fire min range can be removed if in line of sight

Edited by Variant1, 19 February 2017 - 12:26 PM.

[Nesutizale]

About how LRMs should work I quote the rules:

Quote

Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fi re those missiles indirectly. Indirect fi re allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fi re attack, even if that attack would have a better to-hit modifi er.

This would give team tactics and scouting a reason to be used. NARC, TAG and simply haveing a person that provides a LOS now would make sense.
It could be called...information warfare

So should indirect LRM fire be removed? Partial. You should be able to fire indirectly when someone provides you with a target lock. Else its a more direct firing weapon with a lower angle of fire instead of the big curve we have now.

[Nesutizale]

LRMs have one thing that these other weapons can't do. Fire indirectly, that is when people start to work together instead of going "I am the hero, bow to me"
Teams that make good use of spotting will then have the advantage over people who don't see the teamwork.

Also don't forget the different types of ammo an LRM can use...oh wait. We don't have them (yet?)

Edited by Nesutizale, 19 February 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Lugin]

Andi Nagasia, on 19 February 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

im not saying completely remove indirect fire, im saying give NARC & Tag, as well as lights, More Use,
in BattleTech you had to have the C3 system, which allows indirect fire(besides NARC and Tag)
we have Built in C3 in mwo, but it could easily be added as it is Equipment,(1Crit, 1Ton)

This. Is. WRONG.
EVERY. FREAKING. TIME. IT. APPEARS.

Copied from over 18 months ago.

Total Warfare, pg 111 said:

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that
attack would have a better to-hit modifier.
Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery Skill. Use the following modifiers:
• Range modifier based on the range between the target
and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
• +1 for indirect fire;
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no attacker movement modifier for spotting);
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless of whether partial cover shields the target from either the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location; see Partial Cover, p. 102.)
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot spot for multiple targets.

C3 only affects targeting bonus/penalty.

Total Warfare, pg 131 said:

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)
The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information.
To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit
number at long range.
The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.
TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).
LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.
Minimum Ranges: Minimum range is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.
Variable Damage Weapons: The range, to determine the Damage Value of a Variable Damage Weapon, is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.
Stealth Armor: Armor that inflicts range modifiers against attacking units does not confuse a C3 network. While such additional range modifiers apply to the nearest attacking unit, they do not apply to any other units using the network to attack. However, some such systems (notably the Stealth Armor System, p. 142) include their own ECM system; in this case, an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cut off from the network.

Narc:

Total Warfare, pg 138-139 said:

NARC MISSILE BEACON
If a Narc missile beacon attack hits, the Narc pod is attached to the target unit; the target’s player should still roll a hit location to determine exactly where the pod attaches. If that location is destroyed during any subsequent turn, the pod is also destroyed and its effects are lost during the end of the phase in which the location was destroyed.
In all following combat phases, any unit attacking with Narc-equipped missiles adds +2 to the result of the roll on the Cluster Hits Table. This modifier remains in effect for the targeted unit throughout the rest of the battle.
Other Narc pods attached to a target have no additional effect. Other Narc beacons in the target hex do not confuse Narc-guided missiles. The Narc system can be used to aid narc-equipped SRM and LRM missile attacks, but does not affect attacks made with special munitions or launchers.
Critical Hits: Exploding Narc ammo causes 2 points of damage per pod.
Buildings: Narc pods cannot be fired into or inside buildings.
ECM: Narc-guided missiles function like conventional missiles if the narc pod they are homing in on is within the “bubble” of an active enemy ECM suite; they do not receive the +2 modifier when rolling on the Cluster Hits Table (See ECM Suite, p. 134).
Indirect LRM Fire: Once a Narc pod is attached to a target, all Narc-equipped missiles may be fired indirectly at a target without a spotter; all other standard modifiers for Indirect LRM fire apply (see p. 111). In addition, if used in this manner, the Narc-equipped missiles lose their +2 modifier to the roll result on the Cluster Hits Table.
Infantry: A Narc missile beacon cannot be used to attack infantry.

TL;DR: C3 gives no benefit, and is not required. Narc as implemented is pretty much how it is supposed to be.

Not to mention that C3 isn't just a 1T/1Crit investment, at least on mech in each lance needs a 5T/5Crit MASTER or all the slave computers are DEAD WEIGHT.

... I really should just copy certain rulebook sections into plaintext just so I can quickly paste them in for when certain statements crop up.

Edited by Lugin, 19 February 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[Gibson Ibanez]

Why not plug a course dedicated to dealing with lrms into the academy?

LRMs/indirect fire have a solid foundation/place in BT. I have no problem with the way they are ran now in MWO because you need SOMEBODY on your team tokeep thier "eyes on the prize" to lock on and hit anything but... I personally agree with Konivings view/ideas on this. I say that if you HAVE to make changes, make them in the intention of keeping the flavor of each side while keeping a decent gameplay balance.