145 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

The best thing PGI could actually do for LRMs is to actually NERF its max range.

I'll just cut to the chase and tell you I see zero good reasoning behind nerfing range... you've pointed out some truths, yes, but what do those truths have to do with nerfing the range; please finish your thoughts?

Quote

The reason for this is that despite having an incredibly large max range, the effective range is a lot less. It's the conundrum that the PPC+ERPPC face every time velocity is adjusted or even talked about.

In tabletop, the true maximum effective range is 630m; with the range increases of direct fire weaponry in this game, from their tabletop equivalents, this maximum effective range should come in between 900 and 1100m, which is not quite double like several of the weapons, but it's maximum overall range should then be increased between 1250 and 1500m, if we're being real about these. The longest range weapon in the game is the Gauss Rifle at 23 hexes range, or 690m, but in MWO it is 660 and 1320... wait a minute... looking over the ranges of all these weapons on Smurfy's... if those are the actual weapon values, those are ALL screwed up... there's no way the LB-10x has a greater maximum range than the Gauss Rifle... what the hell? A shotgun's effective range in the real-world is about 10m, while a rail gun can fire up to hundreds of miles distant. I realize we're talking vastly different sized weapons, here, but even a rail gun sized shotgun would only have an effective range of one kilometer, I think, and that might be generous.

What is PGI thinking?

[Deathlike]

Threat Doc, on 24 March 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

I'll just cut to the chase and tell you I see zero good reasoning behind nerfing range... you've pointed out some truths, yes, but what do those truths have to do with nerfing the range; please finish your thoughts?

I literally explained it as "effective range". That's what matters most.

The more people continue to use "max range" when it comes to LRMs, the more I facepalm in their attempts to waste ammo. It is akin to back in the day where we had triple max range for dakka... and watching people trying to fire AC20s like they were Gauss Rifles was really maddening.

Once you actually change the numbers, less people will actually try not to derp with LRMs the same way they do now.

Quote

In tabletop, the true maximum effective range is 630m; with the range increases of direct fire weaponry in this game, from their tabletop equivalents, this maximum effective range should come in between 900 and 1100m, which is not quite double like several of the weapons, but it's maximum overall range should then be increased between 1250 and 1500m, if we're being real about these. The longest range weapon in the game is the Gauss Rifle at 23 hexes range, or 690m, but in MWO it is 660 and 1320... wait a minute... looking over the ranges of all these weapons on Smurfy's... if those are the actual weapon values, those are ALL screwed up... there's no way the LB-10x has a greater maximum range than the Gauss Rifle... what the hell? A shotgun's effective range in the real-world is about 10m, while a rail gun can fire up to hundreds of miles distant. I realize we're talking vastly different sized weapons, here, but even a rail gun sized shotgun would only have an effective range of one kilometer, I think, and that might be generous.

I come back to... effective range on LRMs is literally close enough to it's actual max range on TT. That's an actual irony.

Quote

What is PGI thinking?

They don't? They don't.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 March 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

The more people continue to use "max range" when it comes to LRMs, the more I facepalm in their attempts to waste ammo. It is akin to back in the day where we had triple max range for dakka... and watching people trying to fire AC20s like they were Gauss Rifles was really maddening.

I had a game just an hour ago in which I achieved FIVE kills and 674 damage. One of those kills was pure, from between 1000 and 750m, three of those kills were most damage dealt, from 250 to 900m, and another was from 800 to 1100 meters with the killing blow. It's not a waste of ammo if you know what you're doing.

Quote

Once you actually change the numbers, less people will actually try not to derp with LRMs the same way they do now.

I come back to... effective range on LRMs is literally close enough to it's actual max range on TT. That's an actual irony.

Alright, I think I just got what you're saying... instead of listing them at 1000m for their maximum range, list them at 630m, so psychologically boaters understand they are far less effective beyond that range. Is that what you're trying to say?

[Deathlike]

Threat Doc, on 24 March 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

I had a game just an hour ago in which I achieved FIVE kills and 674 damage. One of those kills was pure, from between 1000 and 750m, three of those kills were most damage dealt, from 250 to 900m, and another was from 800 to 1100 meters with the killing blow. It's not a waste of ammo if you know what you're doing.

Yes, I've had those games before. Then again, I can't/don't run those builds generally for obvious reasons.

Quote

Alright, I think I just got what you're saying... instead of listing them at 1000m for their maximum range, list them at 630m, so psychologically boaters understand they are far less effective beyond that range. Is that what you're trying to say?

No, I mean literally nerf the range to 630m or so. I'd rather force people to be more effective more often than be mostly useless most of the time.

[Threat Doc]

In that case, hell no!!! People need to be taught, or need to allow themselves to understand what it is about LRMs. Again, this is an attitude and training issue, not a distance issue. Something COULD be added to the Academy for LRM training, a plateau'd approach to teaching individuals what hitting looks like at various range categories.

[KingCobra]

Andi Nagasia, on 24 March 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

i would support perhaps a slight Decrease in Arc but not too much,
LRMs still need to be able to safely shoot over the heads of their Allies to attack their Enemies,
which i feel is one of the best characteristics if not the best characteristic of LRMs in general,
such would also help in areas with lower ceilings, such as LowerCenter HPG or Crimson,


well their have been many Studies of LRMs here lets see if i can find a Topic where i Compiled a Few,

(Ultimate Lrm Spread Topic! Normalize Lrm Spread?)
however the LRM Spreads has since been changed because of Said Topic to
Type,....Spread,...Cooldown,.....(Clan)
LRM5,....4.2m........3.25sec,....(3.50sec)
LRM10,..4.2m........3.70sec,....(4.00sec)
LRM15,..5.2m........4.00sec,....(4.30sec)
LRM20,..5.2m........4.30sec,....(4.60sec)
(LRMs have since been Normalized, Spread to 4-5 & Cooldown to 3.5-4.5)

==========================================================================================

Well I agree Andi missiles still need to be viable weapons The ARC problem arises mostly when a LRM
Player is high above you and your lower down behind a hill or building the missiles 20-40% will go through a corner of a object and come straight down on you.

One volley of missiles is not enough to kill or damage you much but a Rain of Missile Volleys will kill you even if 90% of the missiles should have been blocked by the object your hiding behind.

[Wildstreak]

Threat Doc, on 24 March 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

I'll just cut to the chase and tell you I see zero good reasoning behind nerfing range... you've pointed out some truths, yes, but what do those truths have to do with nerfing the range; please finish your thoughts?

In tabletop, the true maximum effective range is 630m; with the range increases of direct fire weaponry in this game, from their tabletop equivalents, this maximum effective range should come in between 900 and 1100m, which is not quite double like several of the weapons, but it's maximum overall range should then be increased between 1250 and 1500m, if we're being real about these. The longest range weapon in the game is the Gauss Rifle at 23 hexes range, or 690m, but in MWO it is 660 and 1320... wait a minute... looking over the ranges of all these weapons on Smurfy's... if those are the actual weapon values, those are ALL screwed up... there's no way the LB-10x has a greater maximum range than the Gauss Rifle... what the hell? A shotgun's effective range in the real-world is about 10m, while a rail gun can fire up to hundreds of miles distant. I realize we're talking vastly different sized weapons, here, but even a rail gun sized shotgun would only have an effective range of one kilometer, I think, and that might be generous.

What is PGI thinking?

Sorry, you must have missed my earlier post.
While standard TT uses Long Range as max, additional rules added Extreme Range.
That Gauss Rifle has an Extreme Range of 30 hexes, that's 900 meters.
Yes, it is further here but that is because most weapons excluding Missiles can go double the range for less than full damage.
LRMs get full damage all the way to 1000 m unlike the Gauss that suffers drop-off after 660.
The only weapon coming close to doing full damage as far as LRMs is cAC2s / cLBX2s up to 900 m.

That could be another option though I am unsure if they can code it. From LRM Long Range of 840 m past that, the spread starts to widen mode. Just not sure they could do that.
Maybe past 840 m start some type of damage loss per missile. If they could do that, it would also help SRMs because then they could go up to double their range too.

Edited by Wildstreak, 24 March 2017 - 07:50 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Yes, I've had those games before. Then again, I can't/don't run those builds generally for obvious reasons.



No, I mean literally nerf the range to 630m or so. I'd rather force people to be more effective more often than be mostly useless most of the time.

*Facepalm*

Another LRM hater. I find it amusing how so many people either or both think that LRM's are OP or that they are useless. Try reading my earlier post.

Wildstreak, on 24 March 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

Sorry, you must have missed my earlier post.
While standard TT uses Long Range as max, additional rules added Extreme Range.
That Gauss Rifle has an Extreme Range of 30 hexes, that's 900 meters.
Yes, it is further here but that is because most weapons excluding Missiles can go double the range for less than full damage.
LRMs get full damage all the way to 1000 m unlike the Gauss that suffers drop-off after 660.
The only weapon coming close to doing full damage as far as LRMs is cAC2s / cLBX2s up to 900 m.

That could be another option though I am unsure if they can code it. From LRM Long Range of 840 m past that, the spread starts to widen mode. Just not sure they could do that.
Maybe past 840 m start some type of damage loss per missile. If they could do that, it would also help SRMs because then they could go up to double their range too.

Then how about we do the same for SRM's as well? Widen their spread and lessen their damage at say, 220 meters? Wake up. Missiles do not lose pieces of their warheads after a certain amount of distance. You try reading my earlier post too.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 25 March 2017 - 12:02 PM.

[Steve Pryde]

Remove that stupid indirect flying arc and you can buff the velocity for like 100%. Reduce range? No, never.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I'll happily trade indirect fire capabilities for velocity and spread buffs.

[Albino Boo]

Lrms are under powered for experienced players but overpowered for new players. Anything that makes Lrms more effective in T1 and T2 will make T5 and T4 lrrmageddon.

[Andi Nagasia]

Steve Pryde, on 25 March 2017 - 12:07 PM, said:

Remove that stupid indirect flying arc and you can buff the velocity for like 100%. Reduce range? No, never.

removing the Arch(and by so indirect fire) even at 100% velocity, LRMs would be kinda useless,
they would be like half Speed lockon PPCs, which would be inferior than all other direct fire weapons,
-
i think the Arc(being able to shoot over your Allies) is one of LRMs greatest advantages,

Rouken Vordermark, on 25 March 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

I'll happily trade indirect fire capabilities for velocity and spread buffs.

thats another topic, this is a topic on trading Range for velocity and spread buffs

Albino Boo, on 25 March 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

Lrms are under powered for experienced players but overpowered for new players. Anything that makes Lrms more effective in T1 and T2 will make T5 and T4 lrrmageddon.

unless you make them more Skill full which would be reducing their range and increasing their viability in LOS,

[Threat Doc]

Wildstreak, on 24 March 2017 - 07:49 PM, said:

Sorry, you must have missed my earlier post.
While standard TT uses Long Range as max, additional rules added Extreme Range.
That Gauss Rifle has an Extreme Range of 30 hexes, that's 900 meters.
Yes, it is further here but that is because most weapons excluding Missiles can go double the range for less than full damage.
LRMs get full damage all the way to 1000 m unlike the Gauss that suffers drop-off after 660.

I think you're right, I missed your earlier post, but I want you to go back and think about the differences between L and SRMs and all other weapons available to 'Mechs in the game.

A Gauss round is a 4-inch ball of ferro-steel, and its trajectory shift and bullet drop affect it's accuracy and damage directly beyond 660m. An LRM is a Long-Range Missile, with its own fuel out to 630m, and a small explosive payload a the tip of the weapon, which explodes on impact, meaning it could indeed be hurled the additional 370 to 470m and still explode with full effect, dependent upon the angle of the launchers when fired, the speed of the 'Mech toward the opponent, and how the launcher is configured with regard to how far the LRMs are ejected from the pods before they fire.

[nitra]

Im not sure about this , this might create more lethal murder balls my experience has been when you have lrm boats engaged with the push, they become quite lethal as they keep the suppression necessary for rolling over the enemy team.

thus decreasing ttk even more.

[Threat Doc]

nitra, on 25 March 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Im not sure about this , this might create more lethal murder balls my experience has been when you have lrm boats engaged with the push, they become quite lethal as they keep the suppression necessary for rolling over the enemy team.

thus decreasing ttk even more.

Perhaps I've been away too long, but I haven't seen a murder ball in the two weeks since I returned to the game... what was done to mitigate or eliminate murder balls? Can the same be applied to keeping LRMs from re-activating murder balls?

[Deathlike]

Jep Jorgensson, on 25 March 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

*Facepalm*

Another LRM hater. I find it amusing how so many people either or both think that LRM's are OP or that they are useless. Try reading my earlier post.

I hate weapons are consistently inconsistent. The best thing I can say for LRMs is that they are only conditionally useful.

I like reliably on weapons. LRMs don't really qualify.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 March 2017 - 08:37 PM.

[H LaWMaN H]

LRMs are ok as is,even knowing I hate them but look at the bigger picture here. Good LRMer stay with in 500m to a target giving there target less chance to evade there volley, you can test this if you like because at max range the target can move into cover avoiding most if not all as well as drop the lock and the long ETA of the volley to the target. Now if LRMer like to hide in the back at max range they are meat for the Rats that flank them, gota feed the rats lol. The tactics will change with the new Tech MRM will take up the role you are talking about so hang in there and if changes need to be made make it after the new tech is around a little.

[Wildstreak]

Jep Jorgensson, on 25 March 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Then how about we do the same for SRM's as well? Widen their spread and lessen their damage at say, 220 meters? Wake up. Missiles do not lose pieces of their warheads after a certain amount of distance. You try reading my earlier post too.

I have no idea what the HELL your problem is that you are so pissed off.
Wake up yourself.
Your earlier post has zero bearing on what you responded to that was never said to you and had zero reason to cause your hostile reaction.
And yes, certain changes that LRMs should get in my view should also apply to SRMs.

Threat Doc, on 25 March 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

I think you're right, I missed your earlier post, but I want you to go back and think about the differences between L and SRMs and all other weapons available to 'Mechs in the game.

A Gauss round is a 4-inch ball of ferro-steel, and its trajectory shift and bullet drop affect it's accuracy and damage directly beyond 660m. An LRM is a Long-Range Missile, with its own fuel out to 630m, and a small explosive payload a the tip of the weapon, which explodes on impact, meaning it could indeed be hurled the additional 370 to 470m and still explode with full effect, dependent upon the angle of the launchers when fired, the speed of the 'Mech toward the opponent, and how the launcher is configured with regard to how far the LRMs are ejected from the pods before they fire.

Not entirely true.

A Missile has an increasing chance of missing its target the further away it is. Missiles can also explode either when they hit an obstacle or after a certain distance, in game now you see the explode upon reaching maximum range. Even at times a slight bump can make some real Missiles blow up. If a Missile misses its target, it can still hit close enough to cause splash damage from explosion radius.

Games sometimes have to fudge the system to either reflect reality, improve a game or both. Here I think Missiles should get a damage drop-off past their actual TT Long Range, 840 m for LRMs, 270 m for SRMs. SRMs could than have the doubled range as opposed to their limit now (buff), LRMs would lose some damage potential between 840-1000 meters, gain up to 1680 though for less damage and this would make those sitting way back do less damage thus consider moving into the 700-840 range at least. This damage drop-off simulates a Missile hitting close to that target but doing less because it did not hit dead on in addition to in game effects this would have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for arc, I think there needs to be looking at that 'thing' I see some players do.
I actually see people using LRMs shoot them and flick their aim up under the belief it modifies the arc. That used to be true in the older MW games but I have never seen that here. Actually had someone try to argue they were right yesterday when I told another LRMer the flicking did not help.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Andi Nagasia, on 25 March 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

thats another topic, this is a topic on trading Range for velocity and spread buffs

Indirect fire is pretty central to the issues with LRMs.

Hopefully MRMs and ATMs won't have that issue and we might get some less niche missile weapons.

[Tesunie]

I know I know. I'm late to the party... But I feel I had some important information relevant to at least something here...

Andi Nagasia, on 23 March 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

disagree, Missile warnings have been a staple of most MW Games, and it does add a level of immersion to the game,
also Radar Dep is a Direct Counter for Target Decay so theres that as well,

This is a fairly often misconception (unless what I experience and read are very wrong). Radar deprivation removes the base target decay time from your target. This essentially sets target decay to 0.

Adc. Target Decay on the other hand only adds a percentage off your (unmodified) base target decay amount.

I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, so forgive me, but it basically runs something like this:
- Base TD (Target Decay) is, say, 2.5 seconds.
- Radar Deprivation removes 2.5 seconds from TD.
- Adv. Target Decay adds a percentage to the base unmodified TD, lets just say it brings it up to 3.5 seconds of TD.

What you end up with is, instead of the 2.5 example TD (a true module cancel of each other's effects), you end with a TD of 1 second (in this example) when Adv. TD is "fighting" against Radar Deprivation.

If this was to be a true cancellation, like advertised, than (using above example numbers), Radar Deprivation should only shorten TD by the amount of Adv. TD's amount, in the example of being 1 second. This would make base decay 1.5 seconds, and decay with Adv. TD vs Radar Dep to be 2.5 seconds.

As the second example is not what is happening, it is not a true cancellation of each other's effects, and leaves Radar Deprivation as the better module between the two.


It has been this way since Radar Deprivation's introductions. If they were a true cancellation of each other, I would be a lot happier with the two modules. However, as they are not "created equal" I do not like their current interaction, which leaves lock on weapons (such as LRMs) at a disadvantage, even when they take the module specifically designed and released to help them combat ECM (back when ECM was a lot newer of an introduced piece of gear, instead of placeholder tech).