145 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

I guess I should also now post something ON TOPIC...

As far as a reduction in range (depending upon how much range), a velocity and/or spread buff would make LRMs better. However, as their most effective range is currently only 600m (for best effects), a decrease in range wouldn't actually be much of a nerf and more of a non-issue.

This isn't to say that LRMs shot at targets outside 600m is not viable, just that they are not normally effective at those ranges anyway.

So, unless you are nerfing LRM ranges beneath 600m, I don't think a range nerf would have much of an overall effect... However, I would like to mention that MRMs are incoming, and that LRMs are suppose to be "long" range. Right now, they are more like mid range missiles with the option of indirect fire, considering long ranges in this game are normally out to 800+m away...

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

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



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).

AFAIK, that is not how it was designed.

Radar Derp reduces the default target decay value (there is one regardless of having the module) to 0.

Target Decay increases the default target decay value by a specified amount (the numbers escape me, probably because I don't use that module anyways).

When Target Decay is applied to a mech that has Radar Derp, that length of time Target Decay provides is the ONLY amount of time you get before the lock is broken.

Target Decay is NOT negated by Radar Derp... just the natural bonus that you are provided by the game is reduced/gone.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 March 2017 - 08:16 PM.

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 26 March 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

AFAIK, that is not how it was designed.

Radar Derp reduces the default target decay value (there is one regardless of having the module) to 0.

Target Decay increases the default target decay value by a specified amount (the numbers escape me, probably because I don't use that module anyways).

When Target Decay is applied to a mech that has Radar Derp, that length of time Target Decay provides is the ONLY amount of time you get before the lock is broken.

Target Decay is NOT negated by Radar Derp... just the natural bonus that you are provided by the game is reduced/gone.

That's... actually what I was trying to say?

Adv. Decay increases a set time (in theory a percentage off the unmodified base decay).

Radar Dep changes the base decay to zero (modifies the base decay), but leaves what Adv. Decay grants.

Unless Adv. Decay doubled your decay (it doesn't and shouldn't), than it doesn't directly and evenly counter Radar Dep.

(Only saying this to confirm we are on the same page. Nothing more.)

AKA: If Base Decay is 2.5 seconds, and Adv Decay grants an additional 1.5 seconds, then Radar Dep decreases total decay by 2.5 seconds, than with Adv Decay on vs Radar Dep you'd have a total remaining decay of 1.5 seconds. (In theory.)

[Mcgral18]

dario03, on 23 March 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

Didn't we get a lurmageddon when PGI raised the velocity by something like 30m/s? It wasn't a lol everything is instantly exploding lurmageddon but it was kind of crazy and everybody was running lurms because of it.

That was because it was New and Exciting

The 15M/s nerf was to appease the Potatos
I think it was that small. A net buff overall

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 March 2017 - 08:53 PM.

[El Bandito]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

So, unless you are nerfing LRM ranges beneath 600m, I don't think a range nerf would have much of an overall effect... However, I would like to mention that MRMs are incoming, and that LRMs are suppose to be "long" range. Right now, they are more like mid range missiles with the option of indirect fire, considering long ranges in this game are normally out to 800+m away...

Well then, it is clear that LRMs should get velocity increase without range decrease. Maybe it will be less situational then.

[Deathlike]

El Bandito, on 26 March 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well then, it is clear that LRMs should get velocity increase without range decrease. Maybe it will be less situational then.

There is a point where a pure lurmaggdeon does happen.

When it does, the outpouring will be loud and obnoxious.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 March 2017 - 11:41 PM.

[El Bandito]

Deathlike, on 26 March 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

There is a point where a pure lurmaggdeon does happen.

When it does, the outpouring will be loud and obnoxious.

I bet almost all of those loud and obnoxious complainers would not have AMS equipped then. Small wonder why puggers can't deal with the slowest weapon in the game

[Wildstreak]

Also needs discussion, the IS 0-180 no damage bit.
"But IS needs be different than Clan."
You already have that with:
- Clan streams Missiles, IS doesn't
- Clan launchers are less tonnage and crits
- IS has better cooldowns.
There was an option for IS LRMs to get damage within 0-180 in TT.

[Threat Doc]

Deathlike, on 26 March 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

There is a point where a pure lurmaggdeon does happen.

When it does, the outpouring will be loud and obnoxious.

The ONLY way to mitigate this outpouring is to remove the Missile warning. It's an unprecedented move, I know, but I'm here to tell you there's maybe one novel in all of the lore, to the best of my knowledge, which addresses an actual missile warning of any type, and I actually only remember seeing the missile warning in MechWarrior IV (cough, cough, hairball), not in the previous iterations of MechWarrior. If a pilot is in the middle of a fight, except for the stupid-*** NON-IMMERSIVE missile warning, he doesn't know he's being peppered with missiles. The ONLY reason people are bitching and complaining about LRMs all the time, and I do NOT see this level of vitriol with SRMs, not in the least, is because of the missile warning. People get that warning, they have no means of getting out of the way because of where they are in the fight, and they get hit. The missile warning is the actual problem, and once that's gone, other aspects of LRMs can then be addressed.

El Bandito, on 27 March 2017 - 02:19 AM, said:

I bet almost all of those loud and obnoxious complainers would not have AMS equipped then. Small wonder why puggers can't deal with the slowest weapon in the game

See, what's cool about AMS is that it takes at least 1.5 tons away from the munchkin 'Mech designers, meaning they are not putting on a solid weapon in those 2.5 tons without sacrificing something. If EVERY 'Mech was forced to have an AMS on it, as a natural part of tonnage, that would not bother me in the least to keep flinging missiles, simply because that loss of tonnage forces players to make actual competitive 'Mechs, not the sloppy BS they make now.

[Deathlike]

Threat Doc, on 27 March 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

The ONLY way to mitigate this outpouring is to remove the Missile warning. It's an unprecedented move, I know, but I'm here to tell you there's maybe one novel in all of the lore, to the best of my knowledge, which addresses an actual missile warning of any type, and I actually only remember seeing the missile warning in MechWarrior IV (cough, cough, hairball), not in the previous iterations of MechWarrior. If a pilot is in the middle of a fight, except for the stupid-*** NON-IMMERSIVE missile warning, he doesn't know he's being peppered with missiles. The ONLY reason people are bitching and complaining about LRMs all the time, and I do NOT see this level of vitriol with SRMs, not in the least, is because of the missile warning. People get that warning, they have no means of getting out of the way because of where they are in the fight, and they get hit. The missile warning is the actual problem, and once that's gone, other aspects of LRMs can then be addressed.

That's a two-fold problem.

The missile warning existed in other MW games... I think it was just some audible beeps in MW2 (because you knew it followed LRM usage).

While this isn't necessarily a problem, you have to understand WHO is loudly complaining about LRMs (it's possible to hate LRMs and not really say it's OP or anything of the sort)... and it's usually people new to the game, but primarily those of the lesser skilled variety. If you remove the warning, it would be the equivalent of a Light shooting a target in the back with that guy not reacting and/or becomes surprised they died so quickly.


That warning is ALSO applied to Streaks. Remember that the warning itself is contingent on lock on behavior and not direct fire. In most instances, you already know the Streaks are coming as a Light, so if it's a surprise to you... well then, good luck.


I'm not saying that we can't remove it unilaterally, but understand the people who are generally affected the MOST have nearly NO battlefield awareness. You may be buffing the already good players indirectly, but it doesn't change the fact that the missile warning still doesn't help the already terribad. Removing it will increase the whining from that tier.

[Threat Doc]

I know you're right, but that warning is still a pain in the ***. Didn't stop me from getting five kills and 674 damage, with one of those kills being purely me, hehe. I LOVE my Marauder. Anyway, let me address the lock-on issue, real quick... the missile warning for LRMs comes whether they fly straight from 'Mech-to-'Mech OR overhill. This bears to question: if it's a missile lock-on based on the targeting of a Scout 'Mech, would that warning still apply for indirect fire?

Boy, remove that warning for indirect LRM fire, and that would REALLY piss some people off, LOL.

Edited by Threat Doc, 27 March 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[Tesunie]

El Bandito, on 26 March 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well then, it is clear that LRMs should get velocity increase without range decrease. Maybe it will be less situational then.

I recall when that happened last time. So many people whined that "LRMs are hitting me, this isn't right. Make it stop" that it was rolled back.

So, basically people complained that LRMs where everywhere and was actually hitting. They where everywhere because the change was still new and people where still checking it out. They where hitting because opponents no longer had 5 seconds to react, but instead something like 3-4 seconds.

Oh, and many of said people didn't bother with AMS and didn't keep cover nearby. I also don't believe (but could be wrong) that ECM was in the game back then. Now that ECM is in the game, Radar Deprivation, AMS and soon to be LAMS... I think LRMs could just straight out use a velocity buff. There are enough counters out there that it should be feasible to make this change and not have it be overpowered.

Then, instead of changing it within a few days, it should be seriously tested for a month. PGI should announce that it will stay in the game for a month to collect data, and if the people continue to complain about it and it is showing numbers being too effective, than bring it back down.


With LRMs, higher velocity is a doubled edged sword as much as other people don't think about it. It means that the missiles don't have as much time to correct their position (track), if I lose the lock I have less time to get it back, etc. However, it also means that more missiles will hit more often as the target will have less time to react.

As something that can go hand in hand with increased velocity, AMS could have improved shooting rates (dealing more DPS to missiles) so that they will retain their current effectiveness. This would be a counter to LRM increased travel speeds, so the two systems remain equal. (And, of course, this time if the velocity gets nerfed back down, change the AMS fire rates back down too.)

Threat Doc, on 27 March 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Boy, remove that warning for indirect LRM fire, and that would REALLY piss some people off, LOL.

I must say, as much as I agree with your about the LRM warning and how it can be a hindrance to their use, I kinda believe that removing it at this point in the game would be a little late and unwanted. Impart for the last line you wrote. It would get people angry.

Faster velocity alone should do the trick. Let them known missiles are coming. They will have less time to react to it. Although, without that warning, AMS would gain a new purpose, as a warning signal to people. Hear it going off? Find cover...

[OmniFail]

I'm trying to visualize LRM boats dodging PPC and Gauss Rifle fire while they try to close range. Is this really what you want?

[Tesunie]

OmniFail, on 27 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

I'm trying to visualize LRM boats dodging PPC and Gauss Rifle fire while they try to close range. Is this really what you want?

It's basically what already kinda happens...

PPC and Gauss each have longer effective ranges than LRMs have. PPC and Gauss can be effective past 1000m out, but probably at reasonable effectiveness at 800m.

LRMs say they have an effective range of 1000m, but it really stands at "closer to minimum is better" with 600m probably being the extent of their true effectiveness. Sure, they can hit out to 1000m, but it's unlikely.

Thus, a range nerf for LRMs that doesn't cut under 600m would basically be a pointless nerf. They already don't really reach out past 600m anyway. Of course, if you buff their velocity, now they could reach out farther, making the range nerf at the same time more relevant.


My opinion? LRMs just need a velocity change (if we aren't willing to work on the overall underlying weapon mechanics that is). This will let them actually reach out at longer ranges and hit targets at long range... Otherwise, MRMs are very likely to replace LRMs as a "long" range missile.

Of course, I feel that the entire LRM system could use some work from top to bottom. Instead of having a general "aim for center mass" with spread, I believe LRMs should separate into bundles of five and have a tight spread. Then, each bundle would home in like how SSRMs do, aiming for a specific component. (Where their reasonably tight spread may mean some additional spread of damage possibly?) Artemis could either tighten that spread even farther, or just increase the chances of your bundles aiming more for the torso, rather than arms and legs. From there, increase their velocity, so they can be effective at long ranges. As an add on, AMS would also need to be adjusted so it retains it's proper effectiveness vs faster moving missiles. (This is just one possible solution I can think of for LRMs. There are other suggestions that could work just as well.)

[OmniFail]

Tesunie, on 28 March 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

Of course, I feel that the entire LRM system could use some work from top to bottom. Instead of having a general "aim for center mass" with spread, I believe LRMs should separate into bundles of five and have a tight spread. Then, each bundle would home in like how SSRMs do, aiming for a specific component. (Where their reasonably tight spread may mean some additional spread of damage possibly?) Artemis could either tighten that spread even farther, or just increase the chances of your bundles aiming more for the torso, rather than arms and legs. From there, increase their velocity, so they can be effective at long ranges. As an add on, AMS would also need to be adjusted so it retains it's proper effectiveness vs faster moving missiles. (This is just one possible solution I can think of for LRMs. There are other suggestions that could work just as well.)

Hallelujah Brother

Edited by OmniFail, 28 March 2017 - 10:26 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Good Lord, is PGI listening to this amazing conversation?

[Kuaron]

I want a direct fire mode that would hit the target one third faster by the nature of it's trajectory!

Range is absolutely secondary.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Threat Doc, on 28 March 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

Good Lord, is PGI listening to this amazing conversation?

Define "amazing".

Kuaron, on 28 March 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

I want a direct fire mode that would hit the target one third faster by the nature of it's trajectory!

Range is absolutely secondary.

Your wish has been granted. Lasers and ballistic weapons have just been created!

Seriously though, if PGI nerfs LRM's to their TT ranges, then they would have to do that for everything else (since pretty much nothing is at its TT ranges) and we all know that they are not going to do that. I have no idea what weapon systems you guys like to run, but unless you actually want to see them dropped to their TT ranges, knock off crying about LRM's already. LRM's are just fine as they are now. Not the easiest weapon to use effectively (unless you are shooting at newbs that have no idea what they are doing), I admit. But even so, it remains just fine as it is now and therefore needs no alterations.

[Tesunie]

Jep Jorgensson, on 28 March 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

Seriously though, if PGI nerfs LRM's to their TT ranges, ...

You do realize that most weapons are at their TT ranges? The optimum range is typically their TT ranges. Then, PGI applies the more advanced rule sets with weapons being able to have double ranges, but instead of less accuracy it's with less damage.

LRMs are one of the few weapons that never got true double ranges, but however they retained their damage for the entire range. TT effective range is something like 660m (if I recall Koniving correctly on this).

(At one point in the game, ballistics had triple weapon ranges, with full damage at optimum, half damage at double, and very little damage at the extent of triple range.)


Over time, PGI has adjusted some of those ranges for better game balance.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Tesunie, on 28 March 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

You do realize that most weapons are at their TT ranges? The optimum range is typically their TT ranges. Then, PGI applies the more advanced rule sets with weapons being able to have double ranges, but instead of less accuracy it's with less damage.

LRMs are one of the few weapons that never got true double ranges, but however they retained their damage for the entire range. TT effective range is something like 660m (if I recall Koniving correctly on this).

(At one point in the game, ballistics had triple weapon ranges, with full damage at optimum, half damage at double, and very little damage at the extent of triple range.)


Over time, PGI has adjusted some of those ranges for better game balance.

If you mean their optimal ranges, then yes, I did notice that. With LRM's, instead of doubling their optimal range to get a new max range like everything else, they simple gave it roughly 50% more range and made it a hard cutoff. A simple trade-off. Simple as that. If you want to make a new hard cutoff range at its TT range, then PGI would have to do the same for everything else and make the optimal range everything's new max range. While that would certainly mess up snipers and such, I somehow doubt very many people would be on board with that idea.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 31 March 2017 - 07:48 PM.