29 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

this have come up before,
but i thought it would be interesting to bring it up again,
as with the New Tech talks vs old Tech,

in MWO most weapons are based on 30-35m per Hex,
SRMs have 9Hex Max Range(9 x 30 = 270m Range,
(SRM in MWO have a 270m Range)

so lets look at LRMs,
TT LRMs have 21Hex Range (21 x 30 = 630m)
so 370m less that what we have now, which makes them unique in MWO,
LRMs in MWO have 47.6m/Hex, 59ish% more than other MWO weapons,


=LRM Rework Concept=
bring LRMs back in line with other weapons, giving them 630m Range,
then increase ether their Velocity or decrease their Spread to balance them,
-
shorter range means that mechs have to be closer to use LRMs,
which encourages Missile Boats to Share armor as they will be closer to the Fight,
it also Discourages people Hiding in the back Spamming LRMs as you have to be closer,


so what do you think, how do you feel this would change will effect LRMs?
remember with this Range Nerf comes a Buff to Velocity / Spread or both,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

[FupDup]

Their "effective" range isn't anywhere near 1000 meters anyways, so their TT range would be plenty for most situations.

[Pariah Devalis]

All for it. It also means that the range mod, while probably still kinda useless for LRMs considering, would at least be less useless than it is currently. XD

[Andi Nagasia]

FupDup, on 16 March 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

Their "effective" range isn't anywhere near 1000 meters anyways, so their TT range would be plenty for most situations.

pretty much this, but it would get those guys that like hiding in the back to move up,

Pariah Devalis, on 16 March 2017 - 07:12 PM, said:

All for it. It also means that the range mod, while probably still kinda useless for LRMs considering, would at least be less useless than it is currently. XD

range mod is kinda useless for more than a Few weapons Small Class Lasers, MGs, Flamers, ect.
i think this would be fine as long as they get some benefit, Increased Velocity or Spread Reduction,

[Novakaine]

Sorry you always have potato lurmers lurking in the rear.
Firing at 1000 meters because they simply don't know any better.

[Andi Nagasia]

Novakaine, on 16 March 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

Sorry you always have potato lurmers lurking in the rear.
Firing at 1000 meters because they simply don't know any better.

well if the Range were reduced to 630 so called Potatos would quickly learn they cant farm Damage like that anymore,
a couple very low Damage, and getting no C-bills they will learn to move forward abit, and move into position,

[Monkey Lover]

I wonder they're going to do with the atm. This might start over lapping at 630m.


I do like the idea as lrms need some help.

[El Bandito]

My ARC-5W vigorously agrees with the suggestion.

[Duke Nedo]

I don't mind long range or not, but buffing indirect fire of LRMs would probably not be well received... I'd rather buff direct fire LRMs and then you can have whatever range your wish...

[Lykaon]

There is of course the issue with optimal range vs maximum range.

Missile weapons are unique in MWo because they have a set max range before they destruct.

So while SRMs have a 9 hex range and a medium laser also has a 9 hex range in Battletech in MWo the SRMs have a max range of 270m before they self destruct while the medium laser deals damage (at a reduced level) out to 540m.

Missile weapons do not have an optimal and maximum range they have a fixed range. This means that in the case of LRMs they would be out ranged by many many weapon systems.

This alone compromises the LRM's potential tactical uses and further exposes LRM carriers to highly effective suppression fire from a variety of weapons.

Essentially why bother using a weapon that requires a lock can be countered by ECM and AMS has a very slow projectile speed (160m per sec) AND does not allow for aiming and concentration of damage while being fired on by weapons that out range you have vastly superior projectile speeds and can concentrate damage?

Add to this that nearly one third of your range bracket is within the min range of the weapon (180m min range on LRMs) you have an overly nitche weapon that is very easily countered by a number of techniques.

Much of the potential utility of LRMs is the precieved threat as opposed to actual potential damage they can cause. A target doesn't know how many LRMs have been fired or from how far away they just know they get a missile launch warning and start to get hit.

This will frequently cause the enemy to seek cover when they instead wished to advance suppressing enemy movement and in skillful hands herd them towards less favorable terrain.

While it is true that effective damage from LRM barrage occurs at sub 700m ranges and frequently at sub 500m ranges the actual application of LRMs is not entirely about dealing damage and how efficently damage is dealt.

So if the range was reduced LRMs would need more than either/or spread/velocity. The weapon systems they would be directly competing with at 630m ranges will vastly out perform the LRMs while the shorter range of 630m would lessen the tactical use of LRM suppression fire.


I would say that reducing the range to 630m would also need to be accompanied with a significant increase in projectile speed. Currently LRM speed is a glacial speed of 160m per second to put this into perspective the next slowest projectile speed in MWo is SRMs at 400m per sec. After then taking into account max ranges (270m vs 630m) the LRM is just horrible.

(FYI the champion slow poke of MWo is machine guns with 100m per sec)

I would say bump LRMs indirect fire projectile speeds up to 250m per second and with direct line of sight increase velocity to 450m per second.

Then have artemis provide a velocity buff of 100m per second as well as reduce locking time and improving spread for direct line of sight ONLY.

Indirect fire can only gain spread reduction from NARC and TAG and never gains a velocity buff from Artemis.

Edited by Lykaon, 17 March 2017 - 12:13 AM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Make LRM's read 630m, have their max range 1000m, increase velocity a few ticks, lower their max arc (but keep the initial trajectory) and you have people more likely using LRM's in a range band where they are likely to hit and do damage instead of thinking they can hurt things 1km out. LoS buffing LRM's is a must to further push people into actively sharing armor and getting locks instead of hiding in cover and never taking a shot until their team dies. It also protects LRM boats by them wanting to stay with the blob instead of happy sitting a ways back isolated where a light can have fun with their legs.

Artemis of course would give a further boost, of course, to not invalidate it, it decreases spread, and the reduced lock time of course, but all of it's bonuses once again should be better with LoS. Like right now with how A+LRM's with LOS vs Indirect is roughly the scheme of how LRM's w/o Artemis should work, and Artemis tightening that cluster more and even faster lock on. We want to incentivize LRM boats getting LoS and thus sticking with the pack and at very least poking their nose out to take some damage for the team.

MRM's would still have a purpose as mid range shotgun of missiles while LRM's keep their arc and tracking making them ideal for a second line mech in a murderball as it can lob missiles over it's allies into the mechs ahead of them with bonuses for sticking near the front.

[The Lobsters]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 17 March 2017 - 12:18 AM, said:

Artemis of course would give a further boost, of course, to not invalidate it, it decreases spread, and the reduced lock time of course, but all of it's bonuses once again should be better with LoS. Like right now with how A+LRM's with LOS vs Indirect is roughly the scheme of how LRM's w/o Artemis should work, and Artemis tightening that cluster more and even faster lock on. We want to incentivize LRM boats getting LoS and thus sticking with the pack and at very least poking their nose out to take some damage for the team.

fyi, all of artemis bonuses are already better with LOS. The spread bonus requires los, firing indirectly is the same as vanilla launchers. (unless I've misread your post)


The rear potatoes only fit artemis to get the quicker lock time as they spam every vicarious target lock.

[El Bandito]

Lykaon, on 17 March 2017 - 12:08 AM, said:

Essentially why bother using a weapon that requires a lock can be countered by ECM and AMS has a very slow projectile speed (160m per sec) AND does not allow for aiming and concentration of damage while being fired on by weapons that out range you have vastly superior projectile speeds and can concentrate damage?

Add to this that nearly one third of your range bracket is within the min range of the weapon (180m min range on LRMs) you have an overly nitche weapon that is very easily countered by a number of techniques.

----

So if the range was reduced LRMs would need more than either/or spread/velocity. The weapon systems they would be directly competing with at 630m ranges will vastly out perform the LRMs while the shorter range of 630m would lessen the tactical use of LRM suppression fire.

Aside from missile speed increase, LRM minimum range should be lowered to something like 120 meters for IS LRMs, and 150 meters for CLRMs. It's a start.

Edited by El Bandito, 17 March 2017 - 03:35 AM.

[The Lobsters]

I'm of the view that Lrm's are fairly well balanced right now. Reducing range would have no effect on my lrm playstyle, Artemis already gives an incentive to be in Los. It may cull some lurm-lords, but I doubt it would cull them all together. Tater's gonna tate.

Maybe one change I would welcome is, in the new skill tree (yeah, I know...) make the 'high explosive' node a function of artemis with Los.

Call it 'enhanced artemis' or 'target resolution' or something.

Buffing general speed with Los, while sounding sexy, doesn't make much sense as far as real life missile mechanics goes (yeah..I know....)


Maybe,as a function of Los or better still, artemis, is to make missiles speed up on the final 100-150m of their approach, like they pick up their target in higher resolution and are then able to slam harder into their mark.

On the whole, there are pretty well balanced if you use them properly and play to their strengths.

[Lykaon]

The Lobsters, on 17 March 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

Buffing general speed with Los, while sounding sexy, doesn't make much sense as far as real life missile mechanics goes (yeah..I know....)


Maybe,as a function of Los or better still, artemis, is to make missiles speed up on the final 100-150m of their approach, like they pick up their target in higher resolution and are then able to slam harder into their mark.

On the whole, there are pretty well balanced if you use them properly and play to their strengths.

Altering "speed" with LOS does make sense if the missile trajectory for LOS targeting is leveled out a bit but not flattened to the point where you won't clear firing over a mech in front of you. The shorter overall distance to the target from the flatter trajectory will translate into less time in flight for the volley.

Another way it makes sense is Artemis guided munitions. I assume Artemis uses some form of directed signal to provide targeting data to missiles (this is why it does not work for indirect fire and is vulnerable to ECM jamming) And since Artemis launches must use Artemis ammo one could also assume that Artemis enhanced missiles are designed with improved direct fire capabilities while retaining the "normal" indirect fire guidance of non Artemis ordnance. Hence faster speed when guided by Artemis (direct LOS) and a slower indirect fire speed for the non Artemis barrage guidance system.

Without the Artemis guidance beacon the missile must fly slower to make corrections in flight to retain accuracy for indirect fire while with the Artemis signal the missile goes full blast at the designated target it clearly "sees" being designated.

[Lykaon]

El Bandito, on 17 March 2017 - 03:34 AM, said:

Aside from missile speed increase, LRM minimum range should be lowered to something like 120 meters for IS LRMs, and 150 meters for CLRMs. It's a start.

From a game mechanic standpoint what is the function of minimum ranges?

My take on it is the min range serves a two fold purpose.

one: encourages the proper ranged role of the weapon as a sort of balancing effect.Without a min, range LRMs would essentially be slow firing streak LBx class guns. Not exactaly as designed.

Two: provides an exploitable weakness to counter the weapon's effects. Indirect fire is a very potent force multiplier and as such should have a means of counter acting it. The minimum range allows a fast skirmisher to close rapidly and pressure the LRM carrier into switching targets to the closer threat or displace to move to safety,either can halt the LRM support.

So how much min range is needed to suit those two primary needs?

[The Lobsters]

Lykaon, on 17 March 2017 - 04:27 AM, said:

Altering "speed" with LOS does make sense if the missile trajectory for LOS targeting is leveled out a bit but not flattened to the point where you won't clear firing over a mech in front of you. The shorter overall distance to the target from the flatter trajectory will translate into less time in flight for the volley.

Another way it makes sense is Artemis guided munitions. I assume Artemis uses some form of directed signal to provide targeting data to missiles (this is why it does not work for indirect fire and is vulnerable to ECM jamming) And since Artemis launches must use Artemis ammo one could also assume that Artemis enhanced missiles are designed with improved direct fire capabilities while retaining the "normal" indirect fire guidance of non Artemis ordnance. Hence faster speed when guided by Artemis (direct LOS) and a slower indirect fire speed for the non Artemis barrage guidance system.

Without the Artemis guidance beacon the missile must fly slower to make corrections in flight to retain accuracy for indirect fire while with the Artemis signal the missile goes full blast at the designated target it clearly "sees" being designated.

Nice explanation.

I would however challenge the 'flatter trajectory' idea. One of the strengths of lrm's is coming down 'on top' of their target. The flatter trajectory smacks a bit of homogenising lrm's with guns because gun users think lrm's are unfair , and removes one of their strengths.

Lrms give your team the ability to quickly project dps to support the front line. Flattening their trajectory would mean you hit your own teammates instead of the enemy. They're to shoot over things when you can't shoot through things but can still see your target.

[El Bandito]

Lykaon, on 17 March 2017 - 04:40 AM, said:

From a game mechanic standpoint what is the function of minimum ranges?

My take on it is the min range serves a two fold purpose.

one: encourages the proper ranged role of the weapon as a sort of balancing effect.Without a min, range LRMs would essentially be slow firing streak LBx class guns. Not exactaly as designed.

Two: provides an exploitable weakness to counter the weapon's effects. Indirect fire is a very potent force multiplier and as such should have a means of counter acting it. The minimum range allows a fast skirmisher to close rapidly and pressure the LRM carrier into switching targets to the closer threat or displace to move to safety,either can halt the LRM support.

So how much min range is needed to suit those two primary needs?

I already stated just how much minimum range is needed to make those LRMs to be less situational, but still have exploitable weakness when rushed. 120 meters for IS LRMs, and 150 for Clan LRMs. LRM max range is reduced to 630 meters, and its velocity increased to at least 180 m/s.

[Kuaron]

Ah, yes, direct firing LRMs with a much flatter trajectory would naturally decrease their time to hit.
But to use it we’d need two firing modes (toggling on the direct one allowed by Artemis) because often enough you want to use the high trajectory. Also, the velocity increase would have to be significant enough to use it.
If we assume LRMs would fly in a half circle, trajectory length πr, compared to direct fired 2r, the missiles would need ~36% less time. But the indirect mode would also need to fire a much higher bow to get close to the half circle approximation.

What do you think of such a change?
The reduced max range could take place but wouldn’t matter much anyway above of tier IV.

[Nutta88]

I think that missiles should really be the same as other weapons with an effective range and max range.

This may help everyone to not fire at extreme range and also would help with the newer weapons being introduced. Effective range should be about table top long range and max range being about TT extreme range. So after effective range have the spread increase until max when the missiles fall out of the sky and or explode.

So
LRM 630m effective and 840m max.
ATM, with short 270m, medium 450m and long at 810m with a max range of say 1080m...
Srm 270m effective and 360m max.
SSRM 270m effective and 360m max
c-ssrm effective and 360m and 480m max
MRM 450m effective and 600m max (even though TT the extreme range was just one more hex or 480m).

Srms just exploding at the end of long range, 270m, is just a bit silly… lrms are currently only really effective about 600m so there may be some of this going on with how PGI is coding the damage any way.