106 replies to this topic

[Midax]

LRM's should become wire guided and follow your aim point. Without spotting equipment they would lose their lock on abilities. Tag and Narc would cause LRMs to change to the current firing mode when there is no LOS to the spotted target. Warning indicators for being spotted would be change to be more noticable.

Base LRMs should require no lock. Instead they are wire guided with a velocity increase to match the AC10. Artemis IV would require lock and provide a lock on warning. It would decrease spread and increase missle turn speed to make it easier to hit fast targets. Tag and Narc would act like the Artemis IV system when the LRM mech has direct LOS to the target and earn spotting points. ECM would counter the bonus on these systems, but not stop normal firing.

Indirect fire would split the points earned from damage 50/50 between the spotter and LRM mech. ECM would counter indirect spotting like it currently does.

This would reduce indirect missle spam by requiring team work and equipment to spot. Provides counters for spotting that requires equipment and teamwork that matches that of the spotting team. It also addresses the effect of ECM on LRM missiles fire with direct LOS. It also places LRMs between Gauss/PPC/AC and ERLL when it comes exposure while fireing. You can't twist away before your missles hit, but you can twist faster than ERLL burns finish. LRMs would still be weaker than other long range weapons because of damage spread and AMS, but would make up for it fairly with the chance to indirect fire with a proper spotter.

Edit: By wire guided I mean they follow the reticle. They don't self guide in a parabolic arc. Think Battlefield 3-4 Tow launchers.

Edited by Midax, 31 May 2017 - 09:59 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

First, according to BattleTech lore the ex-Soviet Union was completely strewn with spend missile guidance wires after then end of the Soviet civil war that lead to the creation of the first global Earth government. The lore was written back when wire guided missiles were standard in current milliary deployment. Neat read.

Second, frorcing us to hold reticule on target for the entire flight time with no chance for indirect fire would be a HUGE NERF to the LRM system because it would just be another LBX system. No, it would not be pinpoint, it would be a spread system like what we have now, just without the ability to share targeting info with teammates. You are trying to remove information warfare elements from the game.

We would not use wire guided missiles for indirect fire because wire guidance is meant for secure information transfer when you do not have broadcast ability. If you have secure broadcast ability to share targeting information, then you do not need wire guided missiles. So toss the idea of wire guidance out. And toss the idea of Nerfing LRMs to require additional equipment just to fire over a hill. No need to Nerf LRMs like that

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 May 2017 - 09:36 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

LRM's should become wire guided and follow your aim point. Without spotting equipment they would lose their lock on abilities. Tag and Narc would cause LRMs to change to the current firing mode when there is no LOS to the spotted target. Warning indicators for being spotted would be change to be more noticable.

Base LRMs should require no lock. Instead they are wire guided with a velocity increase to match the AC10. Artemis IV would require lock and provide a lock on warning. It would decrease spread and increase missle turn speed to make it easier to hit fast targets. Tag and Narc would act like the Artemis IV system when the LRM mech has direct LOS to the target and earn spotting points. ECM would counter the bonus on these systems, but not stop normal firing.

Indirect fire would split the points earned from damage 50/50 between the spotter and LRM mech. ECM would counter indirect spotting like it currently does.

This would reduce indirect missle spam by requiring team work and equipment to spot. Provides counters for spotting that requires equipment and teamwork that matches that of the spotting team. It also addresses the effect of ECM on LRM missiles fire with direct LOS. It also places LRMs between Gauss/PPC/AC and ERLL when it comes exposure while fireing. You can't twist away before your missles hit, but you can twist faster than ERLL burns finish. LRMs would still be weaker than other long range weapons because of damage spread and AMS, but would make up for it fairly with the chance to indirect fire with a proper spotter.

LRMs are not wire guided missiles, but they are guided missiles in the same vein as cruise missiles are. They are, for all intents and purposes, fire and forget. They also do not require a lock in TT as they are fired indirectly either within LOS or not. Outside of LOS, they suffer a +1 penalty to hit due to the target being in cover. The missiles, themselves, do the tracking and targeting due to their internal guidance system.

SRMs and MRMs are dumb fire missiles with our equivalent being 19.5" rockets. Streaks are guided missiles like LRMs are.

ATMs are also guided missiles.

Artemis only improves targets in plain view. Narc and TAG works either on targets in LOS or not. It basically transmits data to the missile guidance system with updated information that helps it to be better. Hence why LRMs closest real world equivalent is a cruise missile or a Hellfire. It is not a Dragon or TOW missile as there are no wires used in guidance.

[R Valentine]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 07:01 AM, said:

Very narrow minded. Depending on the situation you might not be able to close the gap and do any damage to him. On the other hand he might not be able to put any effective damage on you the entire match.

One of the problems with LRMs is they are pretty much feast or famine. They do great or they do horrible, with almost no middle ground.

"gittin' gud" is just a silly retort. A good player can be turned to scrap by LRMs in the right circumstances. A good LRM player might not be able to do much an entire match. Telling people to git gud without explaining how they go about it is just a thinly veiled insult and adds nothing to the discussion.

If you can't get up to do damage to him then you're losing or have already lost. Welp, that's Mechwarrior. If you couldn't get up to him in the first place then it really doesn't matter what weapon he's using. It is you, in fact, who are the narrow minded one. You presented a situation that's a losing angle against more than just LRMs. If you can't reach that sniping Night Gyr, you're dog meat all the same. I'll say it again, get gud.

[Rackminster]

I'm a strictly PUG player.

I've got a Cyclops CP-10-Q with quad LRM15 launchers and an LRM10. He lugs into battle 1728 missiles. He packs a TAG and two Medium Lasers on the side, as well as an XL375 engine to stay with the team as the battle flows. It also gives me some speed to backpedal away from someone charging right at me to get inside 90m.

On wide open maps, I can pull in around 850 damage almost exclusively from LRM damage. It takes little skill, so I don't know how to improve that number. On urban maps (or steep cliffs), that number drops down to 350-600 damage as opponents are bright enough to run for cover and a lot of my missiles fail to connect.

Against a team with a couple of people using AMS? I'm basically shooting fireworks into the sky to make pretty lights and might get 300 damage if I'm lucky.

If I bust out my Jester Catapult with a 38 point Alpha, I can reliably get around 400-600 damage per round regardless of terrain. I do the same with my Raven-2X. That's also the case with my favorite Atlas.

Honestly, I'm failing to see the overpowered here. If there's a problem, it's that people got comfortable in builds that didn't use AMS and now they need it again. With the new skill changes, it feels like everything is viable again - LRM's, AMS ... everything.

I'm seeing wide diversity in PUG teams. Sometimes there's no LRM on either team. Sometimes one side has 4 of them. Sometimes one side has no ECM and the other side has 5. I've never once sat down and cried because my team was unbalanced against the opposition. If you think it's unbalanced, bring a balanced Mech.

I can't speak for organized teams and groups, though. I'm sure they're actually practicing strategy and bringing 4 LRM carriers with 4 ECM users and 4 AMS Mechs and everyone can fight at range or up close. A broad range of tactics and counter-tactics.

I see nothing wrong except people who hate change. /shrug

Edited by Rackminster, 31 May 2017 - 09:51 AM.

[Midax]

By wire guided I mean they follow the reticle. They don't self guide in a parabolic arc. Think Battlefield 3-4 Tow launchers.

Also, yes they would be like a LBX in direct fire only you can correct for a moving target. Unlike the LBX, there are ways to tighten the spread. Right now you have to stand an stare are a mech for 3-5 seconds to fire on them and must have a lock. If they are poking with radar derp and ECM coverage, you will never get a lock. A reticle tracking LBX would be better at trades than the current LRMs.

You can still hit indirect targets with a spotter mech using Tag or Narc.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

By wire guided I mean they follow the reticle. They don't self guide in a parabolic arc. Think Battlefield 3-4 Tow launchers.

Also, yes they would be like a LBX in direct fire only you can correct for a moving target. Unlike the LBX, there are ways to tighten the spread. Right now you have to stand an stare are a mech for 3-5 seconds to fire on them and must have a lock. If they are poking with radar derp and ECM coverage, you will never get a lock. A reticle tracking LBX would be better at trades than the current LRMs.

You can still hit indirect targets with a spotter mech using Tag or Narc.

Then you are not using LRMs. LRMs are self guided as per the BT universe. How they work in the universe is that a pilot gains a brief look at the target then fires them. If the target moves into cover and breaks the look the missile's own guidance system tracks the target to hit it. This is why they suffer a +1 to hit in TT and why you don't need to declare a lock to fire them. With the advent of different type of munitions like FASCAM that lays a minefield it only proves my point in that the missile itself does the guidance not the mech that fired it.

Artemis functions as a built in las system that feeds updated information to the missile guidance as long as the target remains in LOS. That information is not relayed back to the mech that fired the missiles. It is the same with TAG and Narc in that it sends the information to the missile not the mech that fired it.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 31 May 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Rackminster]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

By wire guided I mean they follow the reticle.

Ain't nobody got time to stand in the open so they can remote-control missiles and take a CT pounding. Standing in the open to fire off an LBX is hazardous enough, and you don't need to wait around to see where it goes.

[Midax]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

LRMs are not wire guided missiles, but they are guided missiles in the same vein as cruise missiles are. They are, for all intents and purposes, fire and forget. They also do not require a lock in TT as they are fired indirectly either within LOS or not. Outside of LOS, they suffer a +1 penalty to hit due to the target being in cover. The missiles, themselves, do the tracking and targeting due to their internal guidance system.

SRMs and MRMs are dumb fire missiles with our equivalent being 19.5" rockets. Streaks are guided missiles like LRMs are.

ATMs are also guided missiles.

Artemis only improves targets in plain view. Narc and TAG works either on targets in LOS or not. It basically transmits data to the missile guidance system with updated information that helps it to be better. Hence why LRMs closest real world equivalent is a cruise missile or a Hellfire. It is not a Dragon or TOW missile as there are no wires used in guidance.

They have already changed from TT. ECM does nothing to LRMs in TT. Indirect fire invokes much more that a +1 penalty. You also get the movement modifiers of the spotter tacked onto all the normal penalties which include terrain penalties. Also in TT you can not use indirect fire if the shooter has LOS, so I don't know were you came up with the always fired indirect comment. The +1 penalty has nothing to do with cover, you still account for cover when taking the shot. Both SRMs and Streak missiles are guided in TT. Streaks just refuse to fire if they can't calculate a firing solution for all missiles.

Reticle tracking is a form of guidance and fits LRMs just fine. I'm not sure if you realize this, but Hellfire missiles are laser guided. They require LOS and track the laser. That would match Reticle tracking.

[R Valentine]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

They have already changed from TT. ECM does nothing to LRMs in TT. Indirect fire invokes much more that a +1 penalty. You also get the movement modifiers of the spotter tacked onto all the normal penalties which include terrain penalties. Also in TT you can not use indirect fire if the shooter has LOS, so I don't know were you came up with the always fired indirect comment. The +1 penalty has nothing to do with cover, you still account for cover when taking the shot. Both SRMs and Streak missiles are guided in TT. Streaks just refuse to fire if they can't calculate a firing solution for all missiles.

Reticle tracking is a form of guidance and fits LRMs just fine. I'm not sure if you realize this, but Hellfire missiles are laser guided. They require LOS and track the laser. That would match Reticle tracking.

So what? Side Winders and AMRAAMs aren't, so your example with the Hellfire means nothing.

[Midax]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Then you are not using LRMs. LRMs are self guided as per the BT universe. How they work in the universe is that a pilot gains a brief look at the target then fires them. If the target moves into cover and breaks the look the missile's own guidance system tracks the target to hit it. This is why they suffer a +1 to hit in TT and why you don't need to declare a lock to fire them. With the advent of different type of munitions like FASCAM that lays a minefield it only proves my point in that the missile itself does the guidance not the mech that fired it.

Artemis functions as a built in las system that feeds updated information to the missile guidance as long as the target remains in LOS. That information is not relayed back to the mech that fired the missiles. It is the same with TAG and Narc in that it sends the information to the missile not the mech that fired it.

What are you talking about? If the target moves, you get a hit penalty based on speed. That is the representation for the chance that the shot failed to the tracking speed of the missiles. If there is terrain between you and the target, you receive a penalty. That represents the chance for the LRMs to lose locks or strike terrain. If you use a spotter and there is terrain between the spotter and the target, then you receive a penalty based off the spotter. You can't use a spotter if you have LOS to a target even if it would give you less penalties.

If LRMs were Fire and Forget in TT like you described, everyone would be running LRM boats because they would get to ignore all the penalties that every other weapon system is effected by in exchange for a +1 to hit. That is not how it works.

[Midax]

Rackminster, on 31 May 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

Ain't nobody got time to stand in the open so they can remote-control missiles and take a CT pounding. Standing in the open to fire off an LBX is hazardous enough, and you don't need to wait around to see where it goes.

Ain't nobody got time to stand in the open to get and hold their lock with the current LRMs. That is why people with LRM boats stare at hills and walls and end up firing all there missiles into the sides of mountains.

At faster velocity with retical tracking, you eliminate the lock on portion and only have to expose long enough for the missiles to hit. If people have time to stand around with a C-ERLL, then they should have time to guide a missile that will hit before a ERLL can finish its burn. Plus you could pop out fire and hold where the enemy is while you back into cover. So you could be behind a building or hill for part of the flight.

[Burke IV]

Guided LRMs like that are a bad idea cause you do stuff like shoot them directly up into the sky and then bring them down where you want them, including round corners and stuff like that. People wouldnt like it.

[Bluttrunken]

Got to say, it's how it always used to be: Challenge weekends where you have to farm match score or something similar you see all these lrm boats crop up. I don't know why because LRM's are easily countered and struggle to get the same results like metabuilds.

1) Minimize exposure time, giving the enemy less chance to acquire a target lock
2) Choose reasonable, hard cover to minimize damage from attained locks
3) Close the distance carefully and pound their face CQC, or peek and hide with superior alphas
4) Keep your eyes open for scouts and hope your lights are good enough to engage and chase it off
5) ECM and AMS

LRM's are only really dangerous if the enemy has a good scout, a good narc boat is a major pita and can make or break a match.

[Midax]

Burke IV, on 31 May 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

Guided LRMs like that are a bad idea cause you do stuff like shoot them directly up into the sky and then bring them down where you want them, including round corners and stuff like that. People wouldnt like it.

I have no problem with that. It would take skill to indirect fire that way.

[Ruar]

There is no real mechanic in game to make LRMs work like they do in TT. The current homing system is the single biggest problem with LRMs both in how they feel OP and how they can feel under powered.

I haven't been able to come up with a good way to make LRMs primarily an indirect fire weapon that is strong at hitting targets it can't see and at the same time be relatively weak against targets it can see. The closest I've come up with is having LRMs always launch at a 90 degree arc, travel up about two or three times current height, then arc down sharply at the end. This would produce a very long flight time against targets with LOS which allows for more movement and ability to get to cover before the rounds land. It would also mean speed is a good defense as there would be minimum ability to adjust once the rounds tip over into their descent.

The problem I see with such a system is it would negate a big chunk of terrain in the game. Most terrain offers LOS cover but nothing much for high arc weapons. It would mean LRMs would simply dominate anytime there is no tall, or overhead, cover available. This would make the game very much not fun because it would eliminate a huge portion of the poke/peek/mobility aspects. Fights would shift to a few areas where terrain is sufficient to provide LRM cover rendering the majority of the map unused.

I just don't see how it would be a fun game to play when LRMs would become so dominate. Especially when you consider how strong indirect fire has effected games like WoT. Just looking at how the mechanic for artillery works in that game is a tremendous cautionary tale for any other similar game.

Add to this the fact there is no real need for a strong indirect fire weapon in MWO. Movement happens. There is a constant shift of location and position. Why do we need strong indirect fire when there are no real bottlenecks or choke points that require indirect fire to break apart a strong position?

It seems having LRMs focus primarily on being competitive in a direct fire role with some ability to do indirect fire damage would reduce the OP portions and at the same time buff the under powered aspects. It would put skill into using LRMs, reward team play, still have a unique niche, and be so much easier to balance overall.

Edited by Ruar, 31 May 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[Midax]

The thing is LRM's aren't primarily a indirect fire weapon in TT. They are lighter than AC that fire the same distance, but hotter. They are cooler than Lasers that fire the same distance, but heavier. In TT an Archer vs Warhammer fight at long range will be a good match up. In MWO the Archer will be cored out by the Warhammer because of how bad LRMs are at direct LOS trades compared to the PPC.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

The thing is LRM's aren't primarily a indirect fire weapon in TT. They are lighter than AC that fire the same distance, but hotter. They are cooler than Lasers that fire the same distance, but heavier. In TT an Archer vs Warhammer fight at long range will be a good match up. In MWO the Archer will be cored out by the Warhammer because of how bad LRMs are at direct LOS trades compared to the PPC.

Don't LRMs deal damage in clumps of 5 in TT? LRM 20 does not deal 20 damage to one component.
And TT has no travel time or projectile velocities.

And an Archer and a Warhammer fighting without tall cover out in the open? The Archer would only lose because it was designed very poorly with a low cockpit and no periscope sensors. If the cockpit was on top then it could possibly smash the Warhammer because it could hill peep to maintain a lock while delivering LRM rain; the Wammy would have to aim every shot carefully and can only fire when not twisting or when the Missile Mech is visible. And then the missile mech just has to lock the target bracket, not aim for the mech model.

LRMs are good for open fights, they rock the open terrain. Direct fire weapons are great for delivering damage when cover is present , which is something LRMs cannot say about themselves... LRMs are also susceptible to AMS, so imagine if that wammy has AMS overload too.

And, back to the topic, the skill Tree only Helps LRM users if they invest heavily in the firepower and sensor skill trees. A non-LRM user can invest in the sensor tree to get Radar Derp and a few Survival nodes to unlock AMS Overload that gives AMS 250% of normal power. Load 2 AMS and a couple tons ammo and watch yourself shut-down dozens of tons of LRM launhers and ammo.

You cannot say The skill tree is to blame for the increase in peoples' death by LRMs. It is because people want to use LRMs more now that the tree exists and then increase in useage is causing more deaths. Use the skill Tree against LRMs if you think that LRMs are a problem.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 May 2017 - 01:41 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Midax, on 31 May 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

What are you talking about? If the target moves, you get a hit penalty based on speed. That is the representation for the chance that the shot failed to the tracking speed of the missiles. If there is terrain between you and the target, you receive a penalty. That represents the chance for the LRMs to lose locks or strike terrain. If you use a spotter and there is terrain between the spotter and the target, then you receive a penalty based off the spotter. You can't use a spotter if you have LOS to a target even if it would give you less penalties.

If LRMs were Fire and Forget in TT like you described, everyone would be running LRM boats because they would get to ignore all the penalties that every other weapon system is effected by in exchange for a +1 to hit. That is not how it works.

There are plenty of LRM boats and just about every mech chassis has LRMs on it in some capacity. They are fire and forget as per the weapon write up. The +1 to hit is for lining up the shot which doesn't represent targeting. Targeting is lacking in TT and always has been that way.

[JohnnyWayne]

Pjwned, on 30 May 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

If you were being spotted by a TAG laser then that would have also negated the ECM, or it could've been something dumb like your friend was accidentally in counter mode instead of disrupt mode for ECM.

Also only bads have trouble with LRMs on polar whinelands.

It's k - tier 3. Noone asked for your "informed" opinion. No such things. Now you may leave as the good pilots talk.... Some people seriously... They can't read properly but they sure can talk. Especially talk down, on people that is.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 31 May 2017 - 02:21 PM.