Jump to content

Lrm5 Spread


39 replies to this topic

#1 OmniFail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 438 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:06 PM

"LRM Design Notes: Like the SRM 4 changes, after testing these values on the PTS we have decided to roll over these changes to the main game to better balance the LRM 5 against the other launcher types. When it came to the dynamic between LRM launchers, the LRM 5 was often seen as the superior choice. This increase to LRM 5 spread has brought it in line with the LRM 10 to ensure that the LRM 5 no longer compounds its already significant DPS and tonnage benefits over larger launchers." -New Patch Notes.

I don’t get this. To make people play the bad weapons more you decided made the good weapon bad like the bad weapons? O wow man I feel the incentive to play the bad weapons already. This is compounded by the fact that the formally good weapon was impacted more by hard counters such as AMS than the bad weapons and you have chosen to go ahead with these changes on the eve of players having more choices of hard counters such as LAMS.

If thoughts where bullets the people behind this decision would be bullet proof.

Why not make the bad weapons good so people would play them? Did this idea not occur to you?

Disappointedly
Mr. OmniFail.

Edited by OmniFail, 21 March 2017 - 08:08 PM.


#2 Tiantara

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 815 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 06:01 AM

- Agree, better change spread depending of how many LRM5 you have in mech. Just 2 - make spread old. More than 5 - make spread bigger. But I understand why such change was made. Mech with many LRM hardpoints (like 6-7) load them all with LRM5 and fire them nonstop. As nearly all LRM5 hit center torso we get really deadly weapon to take down fat target really quickly. In QP I see not so many AMS support to take down all LRM5 before they hit.

#3 OmniFail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 438 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 01:15 PM

“This increase to LRM 5 spread has brought it in line with the LRM 10 to ensure that the LRM 5 no longer compounds its already significant DPS and tonnage benefits over larger launchers." -New Patch Notes.

If this is true why not knock off the extra half ton on larger launchers to bring them more in line with the lrm5’s or decrease the spread on the larger launchers to bring them more in line with the LRM5’s. To use LRM5’s in a effective way a person must bring a lot of them and can not usually afford to put artmies on them at a ton a piece to make up the difference.

Keep in mind that the LRM5 does that same exact damage as a SPL. Sure it has greater range but it also has more spread damage and hard counters. Really the main difference in efficiency is the heat. Why not increase the heat on LRM5’s by 1 instead of increasing their TTK through manipulation of their spread?

This change discourages players from using missiles on light and medium mechs and forces them to use mechs of higher tonnage. And we all know how the community feels about that.

If a person is using LRM5’s as their primary weapon it is like having a quirk on their mech that states TTK +20%

About two months ago I was watching the No Guts No Galaxy pod cast. Phil and Momma Bear where talking about Faction Play and they were talking about how to get more people to play. During this conversation Phil mentioned that he was of the opinion that all players would have join a unit. At that moment I thought to myself I wonder if the back shaving alpha striking metawhores like Phil would let my Huntsman Lurm boat join? The answer is most likely no. The reason is because LRMs are not meta. Changes like this do not improve what is considered to be a subpar weapon and give it more viability in FP. I’m just saying if you want the LRM people to play you gotta make so their treated like team members and not pariahs.

What ever happened to the “Thinking Mans Shooter”? Why coddle the Pew Pews?

Let my people go.

Pretty Please?

#4 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 01:20 PM

View PostOmniFail, on 21 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

I don’t get this. To make people play the bad weapons more you decided made the good weapon bad like the bad weapons? O wow man I feel the incentive to play the bad weapons already. This is compounded by the fact that the formally good weapon was impacted more by hard counters such as AMS than the bad weapons and you have chosen to go ahead with these changes on the eve of players having more choices of hard counters such as LAMS.


Countered by AMS requires players who'll actually USE AMS on their mechs. The majority do not. And yes the LRM5 was the standout size except for heat. For mechs with lots of hardpoints, boating LRM5s makes more sense than carrying a couple larger launchers. Faster ROF, less tonnage, smaller spread, and you can group up to 3 of them at a time without ghost heat (all other sizes its pairs only) meaning they'll do 15 missiles for less tonnage and a much smaller spread than a single LRM15 launcher for only 1 more heat. Boated LRM5s is one of the reasons there was a fight to get an AMS equipped mech into the latest round of champions... as they are used as trial mechs and no other champion in the game so far had AMS equipped which could simply be placed into rotation. Even when the tech advance happens, I suspect few will use the Laser version of the AMS anymore than they use the version we already have.

#5 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 4,245 posts
  • LocationUnknown... Except for the stars, it's kind of dark here!

Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:09 PM

It's still no reason to 'baby' the people who don't think to use AMS. While I understand PGI's reasons, I wouldn't have added THAT much to the spread. Ranging from '3' to '4.2'? It should have been '3.8', given how wide it spreads now. I've even checked it with the Inner Sphere side, right along with Clan equipment. PGI has overdone yet another change, putting it over from good to bad. -_-

~Mr. D. V. "Really wishing PGI would quit doing bad through overkill..." Devnull

#6 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 05:16 PM

I don't like the SRM4 and LRM5 changes. The SRM4 stood on where it's good without artemis, and it's better with Artemis but not garbage.

LRM5 is usually only used precisely because there's not enough slots and tonnage. LRM5 is the economical choice, but not the superior one if LRMs is the primary damage dealer. While you can mount 3 as a pseudo LRM15A, when you have enough slots and tonnage you can have 3x LRM10As or LRM15As that would have significant DPS.

#7 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Captain
  • Senior Captain
  • 1,105 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 06:09 PM

View PostOmniFail, on 21 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

I don’t get this. To make people play the bad weapons more you decided made the good weapon bad like the bad weapons?

This is called balancing: Making choices equal.
LRM5s were too light for being better in addition.

#8 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:38 PM

For a long time, the LRM5 launcher was the "best" launcher one could take. It was so bad that the meta for LRMs was spam as many LRM5s as you can cram into a mech. If a mech only had a single or a few missile slots, it was considered as garbage as far as LRMs were concerned, at least via meta (for LRMs) was concerned.

Speaking as a long practitioner of LRMs, this has been a change long in the making. I can't say how good or bad LRM5s are, but I can comment that the other launchers still work perfectly fine, and now it isn't so much "how many missile slots you have" to get your tube counts, it's a bit more "what launchers would you like to take".

I've operated and used the larger launchers, sometimes even just a single large one, for some time. They do work, but the LRM5 was far too good for it's tonnage when placed enmassed. Before this change, the non-triple missile slot side torsos of the Mad Dog were considered just about useless (even though I know otherwise). Now? I don't believe it is so much anymore.

Personally, I'd rather like where this change may be headed towards. I'd much rather all LRM systems have the same spread, no matter the number of missiles in the air. To compromise on the spread, I feel rate of fire could be adjusted as well as the missile velocity. (Last time LRMs got a boost to their velocity, everyone complained that they were too fast and was hitting them...)


However, I do not know yet if the changes presented currently (and on it's own) are overdone or not. I haven't pulled out my LRM5s yet to see how they feel. It may very well be too much, I'm not sure. However, the larger launchers are still a very viable option, depending upon how you use them.


(I will make note, I know that LRMs are not really a current "meta", but there is an LRM "meta", or a preferred way of using them that is deemed more effective than other possible uses, even if it may or may not be completely true.)

#9 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,625 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 10:41 PM

Change seems fair
I read it got reduced to lrm10
still pretty tight

#10 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 07:47 AM

Once I get bored with my Assassins I'll take out my ARC-5W and see if the spread change has altered its habit of regularly having 700-1100 damage games or not.

#11 The Lobsters

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 269 posts
  • LocationLocation Location.

Posted 23 March 2017 - 09:57 AM

I haven't had a chance to play them yet, but going by my dps/m2 spreadsheet calculations, they may have been better splitting the difference between the old lrm 5 and lrm 10 spread, maybe 3.6m would be better. On dps/m2 they were a wee bit op before, but not that much.

There aren't that many mechs that can really do a full lrm 5 package. The ARC-5W, the CPLT-A1 and the KTO-18 are the only ones that spring to mind. Going on the new stats now, I can't say I would find a reason take them out now, over other mechs.

Previously 3m spread

KTO-18 5 x lrm 5 = 6.99 dps/m2
TBT-7M 2 x lrm 15 = 5.41 dps/m2
HBK-4SP 2 x lrm 15 = 5.41 dps/m2
HBK-4J 2 x lrm 10 = 5.34 dps/m2

So the 55 tonner is better than the 50 tonners, no surprise there, but maybe it was just a wee bit too better.

Now the KTO-18 is 4.99 dps/m2



That's quite a drop.




A spread of 3.6m would put it at 5.82 dps/m2.


That seems fairly reasonable. It's the same story with the 5W and the A1 in their weight classes.


A slight case of over-nerfing.

#12 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 23 March 2017 - 10:09 AM

View PostThe Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

A spread of 3.6m would put it at 5.82 dps/m2.


In your math (which is highly interesting, even if I am not currently fully grasping how you did it, and/or what it's saying, though I think I know...) you forgot other affects beyond damage. There is screen shake as well as blinding affects from LRMs. As the LRM5 can still continue to chain fire a near continuous stream of missiles at a target, it can keep a target disoriented and hindered. Where as, compared to even an LRM10, the other launchers really can't pull this tactic/effect off.

Overall, I think LRM5s probably should be doing a little less on the damage front, considering the other effects and advantages it can bring over it's large launcher brethren. Just, something else to consider.

#13 The Lobsters

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 269 posts
  • LocationLocation Location.

Posted 23 March 2017 - 10:29 AM

View PostTesunie, on 23 March 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:


In your math (which is highly interesting, even if I am not currently fully grasping how you did it, and/or what it's saying, though I think I know...) you forgot other affects beyond damage. There is screen shake as well as blinding affects from LRMs. As the LRM5 can still continue to chain fire a near continuous stream of missiles at a target, it can keep a target disoriented and hindered. Where as, compared to even an LRM10, the other launchers really can't pull this tactic/effect off.

Overall, I think LRM5s probably should be doing a little less on the damage front, considering the other effects and advantages it can bring over it's large launcher brethren. Just, something else to consider.


The math is doable, but takes a bit of head scratching. But if like me, you have an unhealthy obsession for finding the optimal lrm package, it's worth doing.

Essentially, I realised the only true metric for an area effect weapon, that centres on the CT, for the purposes of coring said CT is dps/m2.



All fair points about lrm 5 extra effects. I will say though, that in terms of matching cooldowns to a full chainfire cycle, most decent lrm 10 builds can manage that too. With lrm 5's, and the amount you need to carry, the cumulative cooldowns often exceed the chainfire cycle, so to get the full dps you will need to volley fire or at least fire in two groups.

For example, it only takes 5 lrm 5's on a CPLT-A1 to make the full chainfire cycle. If you are chain firing a 6 x lrm 5 CPLT-A1, you will always have one launcher idle, and only get the dps of five. To get the full deeps you need to volley or split between two or three groups.

Certainly chain firing the ARC-5W with 9 x lrm 5's seriously reduces your dps. With a cooldown with module of 2.7s, and a chainfire rate of 0.5 s, by the time you've fire your fifth , you're almost ready for your first again.

There are also the increased ghost heat costs of volley-ing lrm 5's, as you are way past the GH limit on the common builds. That can bring another balancing factor to them.


Personally, while the suppression effects are good, I'd still like to be getting the full deeps. Because Yarrr!!!




ed. Apologies if that sounds patronising, I'm sure you're aware of all that.



.

Edited by The Lobsters, 23 March 2017 - 10:38 AM.


#14 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 23 March 2017 - 10:50 AM

View PostThe Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

There are also the increased ghost heat costs of volley-ing lrm 5's, as you are way past the GH limit on the common builds. That can bring another balancing factor to them.


I figured that was what you were doing for the math. Damage divided by the area it impacts kinda thing. It is an accurate way of seeing LRMs, though that match must be annoying to figure out...


As for chain fired LRMs, the 5s can do it for a lot less tonnage, meaning medium mechs (or even lights) can perform the 5 spam rather easily. The 10s may be able to do it as well, but on a lot fewer chassis. You also would take 6 LRM5s for the redundancies, or for a quick "rapid fire" of them (quickly tap the fire button on a chain fired group, you can shoot them a little sooner). On the 9 LRM5 setup, you could always have two groups of LRMs on chain fire, and just shoot the two together at the same time. Then, while still saving a ton per "volley", you now shoot out 10 LRMs per chain, keeping the higher DPS.

Chain fire (as in, press and hold the fire button) should never activate Ghost Heat. FYI. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't still get hot after a few weapon cycles...


I do want to stress that I'm not disagreeing with you, as LRM5s could have very well been over nerfed, but if so I think it's still 3.6 spread would make it "too good" again. Maybe a 3.8 would make it sit right? (It's DPS/m2 should be slightly lower than or equal to the larger launchers in my opinion, but not too drastically lower.


You aren't patronising at all. We are discussing. You are mearly presenting your information. I find it best to assume the other party either knows nothing about the subject, and/or that it's always good to review and make sure everyone is on the right page. AKA: I'm often in help threads, and when I provide information, I like to provide as much as possible, even if it's already been mentioned or is assumed knowledge. Best to just get it all out there for clarity.

#15 The Lobsters

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 269 posts
  • LocationLocation Location.

Posted 23 March 2017 - 11:10 AM

Here's something to base your calcs of, if you haven't seen it already.

https://mwomercs.com...h-skill-quirks/

Work out your circle area, Divide your dps by that area, and Bingo!


yes, what I meant re ghost heat was just how it placed a greater restriction on when you fire full volleys with lrms 5's, as a balancing factor.

I guess I don't use them much on smaller mechs, being a bit of an artemis snob.

I didn't think you were disagreeing with me. I guess I've been dealing with some less mature forum members today, I put a caveat in just to stay on the safe side :)


Btw, a spread of 3.8m will give you 5.52 dps/m2. Still above the 50 tonners.

#16 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 23 March 2017 - 11:20 AM

View PostThe Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Btw, a spread of 3.8m will give you 5.52 dps/m2. Still above the 50 tonners.


I just didn't want you to think I'm necessarily disagreeing with your consensus. You've done the math, I haven't even tested out the LRM5s yet with the new patch... I believe sometimes you have to see how it feels, because every so often spread sheets just don't tell the full tale.


I was looking for a number between 5.3 and 5.5, which would place it into the same ballpark as the other launchers. It should not be better, but it shouldn't be drastically worse either. It should be different is all, something that needs to be considered with gives and takes.

As you said, LRM5 spam is more chain fired DPS, over burst damage alpha. The larger launchers are more for an alpha or burst of damage, but not for steady DPS.

#17 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 4,245 posts
  • LocationUnknown... Except for the stars, it's kind of dark here!

Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:51 PM

View PostThe Lobsters, on 23 March 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Btw, a spread of 3.8m will give you 5.52 dps/m2. Still above the 50 tonners.

Hey, that's the number I stated as a best adjusted spot, right back up above! And I "eyeballed" it! :o

~D. V. "Two good minds, two different approaches, same result!" Devnull

#18 The Lobsters

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clamps
  • The Clamps
  • 269 posts
  • LocationLocation Location.

Posted 23 March 2017 - 03:29 PM

View PostDee Eight, on 23 March 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Once I get bored with my Assassins I'll take out my ARC-5W and see if the spread change has altered its habit of regularly having 700-1100 damage games or not.


Trigger warning



It's taken quite a hit.

With 3m spread it did 8.30 dps/m2. That put it slightly better than the CPLT-C4 with 4 x alrm 10 + tag at 8.13 dps/m2, which is pretty hardcore for a 65 tonner.

For ref, the BLR-1S is 7.53 dps/m2 with 4 x alrm 10 + tag.



Now it's dropped to 5.93 dps/m2

You can get 6.10 dps/m2 out of the KTO-19 with 3 x alrm 10 + tag, and it's not really far above the other medium mech hard hitters I've listed in a previous post.


If the spread was 3.8 m, the dps/m2 would be 6.55.

With a spread of 3.6m, the dps/m2 would be 6.92.



Considering the BLR-1S's output, I'd say the 3.6m spread would be a good spot for the 5W




That said, you'll still probably get good damage numbers, but as you can imagine, it'll take the 5W longer to actually kill something.


Poor 5W Posted Image

.

Edited by The Lobsters, 27 March 2017 - 03:56 AM.


#19 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 23 March 2017 - 07:31 PM

IS... Mechs with 5 or more missile hardpoints besides the aforementioned kintaro GB and 18, archer 5S and 5W and catapult A1...

- Bushwacker BSW-P1 has six
- Cyclops CP-10-Q has seven
- Stalker STK-5M has five

#20 AIRBERG

    Rookie

  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 06:46 AM

This change is crap. As if Inner Sphere mechs didn't have a hard enough time vs clan mechs to begin with, now you go ahead and nerf something that gave us some balance. If this change is to stay for good, I believe Clan LRMs deserve a spread nerf as well. It's not our fault people don't use AMS and then cry about LRM boats destroying them. Revert LRM 5s back and give AMS a boost such as 1/2 ton lighter. It seems ridiculous that the tiny little gun on your shoulder shooting missiles down weighs 1.5 tons and 1 ton of ammo is only 2k rounds but a Machine Gun is .5 tons and 2k ammo for 1 ton... how about letting machine guns act as AMS does but you manually shoot the missiles. I think that could add a fun mechanic to the game





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users