135 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

AphexTwin11, on 23 March 2017 - 04:54 AM, said:

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

Thank you. I'm happy to be of service.

[Helene de Montfort]

PGI kept too much of BT to use LRM as they do. Adding indirect fire capability just made them way too powerful, especially if you consider that they do more damage than in BT, and that those damage are way more localized.

Removal of indirect fire capability would be a good first step.

BTW, the SRM have also been badly integrated in MWO.

If they wanted to keep all they did with weapons accuracy, spread, indirect fire, they would have to forget the rest of BT, localization system, armor/structure/critical system, and redo everything from scratch. They didn't, that's the main reason MWO is such a bad Battletech game.

Edited by Helene de Montfort, 23 March 2017 - 07:37 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Helene de Montfort, on 23 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

PGI kept too much of BT to use LRM as they do. Adding indirect fire capability just made them way too powerful, especially if you consider that they do more damage than in BT, and that those damage are way more localized.

Removal of indirect fire capability would be a good first step.

BTW, the SRM have also been badly integrated in MWO.

If they wanted to keep all they did with weapons accuracy, spread, indirect fire, they would have to forget the rest of BT, localization system, armor/structure/critical system, and redo everything from scratch. They didn't, that's the main reason MWO is such a bad Battletech game.

Alright, put down the crack pipe. Have you EVER ACTUALLY PLAYED BATTLETECH?! Your words say you've likely never even cracked open a rule book for it.

[SOL Ranger]

Suggesting removing the only indirect fire weapon capability from the game is frankly preposterous.

[SolasTau]

Threat Doc, on 23 March 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

Alright, put down the crack pipe. Have you EVER ACTUALLY PLAYED BATTLETECH?! Your words say you've likely never even cracked open a rule book for it.

Right? In BT, being shot with an LRM20 is actually threatening. In MWO, it's more like "...better not let that happen too many times."

[Andi Nagasia]

SolasTau, on 23 March 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Right? In BT, being shot with an LRM20 is actually threatening. In MWO, it's more like "...better not let that happen too many times."

well in TT that actually had a 630m range, and with that other advantages,
here we have LRMs at +59% Range but at -59% Viability, thats the Problem,
and my New Topic on that can be Found (HERE)

[Threat Doc]

SolasTau, on 23 March 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

Right? In BT, being shot with an LRM20 is actually threatening. In MWO, it's more like "...better not let that happen too many times."

I think that's what pisses me off the most about this game. To my mind, and perhaps this is entirely true in MWO, the penalties for LRMs far outweigh the range benefit.

Andi, I'm headed over to explore the new thread and, perhaps, comment since I believe I'm among the top ten proponents for Long-Range Missiles.

[Sebaztien Hawke]

It mightn't be good game balance if LRMs had a linear damage progression. They have indirect fire, and can continue to fire even after LoS is lost. It's only fair that there are some penalties/ checks / balances for the combined range, damage and annoyance LRMs cause. After all, should you really be able to shoot at someone who may have no chance of returning fire? Is that actually good gameplay for a video game? It's meant to be fun for bothe parties. A situation where you are completely free of retaliation may be great for the support missile player, but not so fun for those on the other side of it. The fact that can occur suggests it is reasonable for LRMs to be less efficient damage/velocity wise than ballistic and energy weapons. Maps like Frozen City would be utterly boring and one-dimensional if LRMs were any more popular or powerful than they are now. Many players are already too hesitant to close on the enemy.

Besides... a brawling game is a better, more fun game. It's more chivalrous and in line with the psuedo "knights in robots" vibe of BattleTech. Just do that instead

Just my 2 cents.

[Bigbacon]

Lrms are fine as is. Bigger issues to worry about.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 19 February 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

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.

What we have was available to 3025-era 'Mechs, never mind even remotely close to a Battletech C3 network (which not only shares an immense amount of data, but will literally slave your systems to the result for effectively best-possible range to target.)

But I agree that LRMs should have poorer IDF than direct-fire mode. They already do, given the loss of Artemis on a piggybacked lock. Getting your own locks should be more rewarding, though- and that can include a flatter arc with modestly higher velocity and better spread- the last of which it generally gets because Artemis, the other two to represent the fact that in TT, indirect fire is always less accurate than direct for LRMs (spotter penalties). As velocity = improved accuracy, it's the real winner for a missile boat.

IDF to 200, DF to 240 velocity, and give us a no-lock "flat shot" that also doesn't include Artemis spread bonus so you don't have a weapon automatically crippled by a roof. I'm in the "buff direct fire" camp, carrots work far better than sticks and if it's a direct fire boost, it's not like people can whine about how they made it easier to hide in the back and rain on people.

[thievingmagpi]

LRMS don't need debuffing. They're basically useless as is.

[Brain Cancer]

Sebaztien Hawke, on 14 September 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

It mightn't be good game balance if LRMs had a linear damage progression. They have indirect fire, and can continue to fire even after LoS is lost. It's only fair that there are some penalties/ checks / balances for the combined range, damage and annoyance LRMs cause. After all, should you really be able to shoot at someone who may have no chance of returning fire?

Yes. We do it every time someone's outside their weapon range and in ours. Indirect fire isn't required for that...it's something that goes back to the first Gaussapults. And there ARE penalties already.

IDF mode disables Artemis. You get more spread on top of the regular spread LRMs have, meaning your damage is even more inefficient than before. Someone's got to keep LOS (and if you're a back camper, that means they are more focus fired on for lack of your exposure, you potato), which also means people (logically) shoot spotters more. (Incidentally, NARCs are not AMS proof.). The missiles blare a warning all the way in. They're slow enough that a long range shot can easily exceed six seconds from firer to target.

Quote

Is that actually good gameplay for a video game? It's meant to be fun for bothe parties. A situation where you are completely free of retaliation may be great for the support missile player, but not so fun for those on the other side of it. The fact that can occur suggests it is reasonable for LRMs to be less efficient damage/velocity wise than ballistic and energy weapons. Maps like Frozen City would be utterly boring and one-dimensional if LRMs were any more popular or powerful than they are now. Many players are already too hesitant to close on the enemy.

I can't count how many times I've watched an LRM boat get tracked by his missile trail and promptly eviscerated by a light. I also get amused every time someone calls an LRM boat dangerous, when it's a team that doesn't have so much as a single AMS between them. Missile boats are dangerous when nobody pays attention to them as threats.

I've seen lurmageddons. I also saw what a team that carried AMS did to said missile barrages. If LRMs are dangerous, people will carry AMS. If AMS is widely carried, missiles become a far riskier choice- even now, one triple-AMS unit can choke the average LRM user without even paying attention. If LRMs improve, the use of their counters will also improve.

Quote

Besides... a brawling game is a better, more fun game. It's more chivalrous and in line with the psuedo "knights in robots" vibe of BattleTech. Just do that instead

In that case, why do we even have ERLLs/ERPPCs and anything that can get past 300m without losing damage? A game where the range and position game matter little is a far more two-dimensional one.

[Galenit]

If less then 50% of all mechs in all matches mount ams, lrms need a buff!

They are as weak that nearly noone uses a small, lightwheigt counter ...
... seems they need a big buff.


The missilewarning tied to ams and ecm,
(no counter, no warning) would do it as a first step.

Edited by Galenit, 14 September 2017 - 06:52 PM.