59 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Reading through the multitude of LRM threads it's evident the mechanics behind LRMs needs to change. I got some great feedback an a thread about requiring NARC/TAG which shows LRMs need to be self reliant instead of dependent on someone else. Additionally there needs to be a distinct difference between how direct fire and indirect fire works.

Please read through all of the below changes and don't just stop on the first one you don't like. There will be changes which make them better and worse so read the entire thing please. Also, all suggestions will use current coding capabilities without the need to create a new mechanic that doesn't exist.

The intent behind these changes is for LRMs to be an area effect weapon instead of pinpoint. In direct fire mode the area is smaller than in indirect fire mode but still would not be tight enough to select a specific hitbox.


Direct fire-

Shallow arc flight path

Similar velocity to AC10 (assume this will take adjustments based on in game feedback)

No lock, no homing, no missile warning

Wider spread than current, same spread for all launchers

LRMs need a better direct fire role to put them closer to other weapons. At the same time the fact you can put 40-80 damage alpha's into the air has to be a factor in the changes. I think direct fire should be a shallow arc path with high enough velocity to be slightly slower than AC10 and a larger missile spread. No homing, no lock, no warning. The arc and speed combined will require a level of skill to put them on target. The wider spread will be applied to all launchers equally regardless of missile count. The point behind the spread increase is to make LRMs an area weapon instead of a pinpoint.

Indirect fire-

Toggle to switch fire modes

Lock required but no homing

Very wide missile spread, 10m might be a good starting point

High arc with triple (maybe double) the flight time of direct fire

Incoming missile warning

Indirect fire mode requires some kind of key to swap between modes, and would be a very large area effect weapon. Once a mech is spotted then the lock process begins. Once the lock is achieved then the missiles will travel to that point on the ground the same way missiles travel now to their last lock point. The missiles will have a very big impact area which makes them great for choke points, enemy concentrations, or flushing out mechs behind low cover. The high arc will help get over obstacles but will still make tall terrain useful. Since a lock is required there will be an incoming warning allowing people to move as a defense against the only indirect fire weapon in the game.



MISC changes-

IS LRMS no longer have a minimum range, however they have reduced damage the same way as clans in close. LRMs remain a long range weapon.

NARC/TAG would decrease the size of missile spread. TAG needs other adjustments, but I'm not sure what and it's a separate conversation.


I think that would make LRMs more skill based and still have an indirect fire role. They would be more potent in direct fire mode but would also require the user to expose their mech in order to fire just like every other mech. Indirect fire would still exist but it would be an area effect weapon and not something used to hammer people while sitting in complete safety. Massed fire would still serve a purpose but so to would having a single launcher to augment long range engagement.

Anything I'm missing?

[adamts01]

All that direct fire spread would make them a joke compared to every other direct fire weapon, same as the LBX at range. And the indirect fire nerf isn't needed on a weapon that doesn't perform at top tier play. LRMs will never be in a good place till we get true electronic warfare.

[Savage Wolf]

Required lock and no homing on indirect fire? How are you supposed to hit anything past the spread being on an entire map sector and everyone will be hit by one missile max for a wooping 1 damage?

Am I missing something here?

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

Required lock and no homing on indirect fire? How are you supposed to hit anything past the spread being on an entire map sector and everyone will be hit by one missile max for a wooping 1 damage?

Am I missing something here?

Take the Archer or Catapult as the example since they are designed as fire support mechs. LRM 40 doing 8-10 damage per salvo in indirect fire mode. That's a 20-25% hit rate when you are not in LOS of your target. As I said, the spread range can be adjusted based on feedback, I was just going with a good size for a possible starting point.

Mechs with fewer launchers will have less damage, but they are still able to hit a mech they can't actually see. There has to be some kind of trade off for firing from safety and still doing damage. Doing a moderate amount of damage seems reasonable.

adamts01, on 30 May 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

All that direct fire spread would make them a joke compared to every other direct fire weapon, same as the LBX at range. And the indirect fire nerf isn't needed on a weapon that doesn't perform at top tier play. LRMs will never be in a good place till we get true electronic warfare.

The spread can be adjusted, the point is to make sure an LRM 80 isn't doing 80 points of damage in direct fire mode at 900m against a stationary target. There has to be some misses to balance the potential power of the LRM at range. LRMs in direct fire mode should behave the same as SRMs and MRMs with the main difference being velocity, spread, and range.

[Novakaine]

Er no, your post is disengeniuos at best.
You lost me at a shallower arc which would allow even the smallest of boulder.
To be hard cover.
Seriously stop trying to further nerf the arguably the worst weapon in this game.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:52 AM, said:

Take the Archer or Catapult as the example since they are designed as fire support mechs. LRM 40 doing 8-10 damage per salvo in indirect fire mode. That's a 20-25% hit rate when you are not in LOS of your target. As I said, the spread range can be adjusted based on feedback, I was just going with a good size for a possible starting point.

On what target? An Atlas or a Jenner?

And 10 damage with an LRM40? That's a joke compared to the heat and tonnage involved. Might as well never fire indirect which is the entire point of the damn weapon system. Otherwise they would just be hot LB-X weapons.

[Ruar]

Novakaine, on 30 May 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Er no, your post is disengeniuos at best.
You lost me at a shallower arc which would allow even the smallest of boulder.
To be hard cover.
Seriously stop trying to further nerf the arguably the worst weapon in this game.

How is that any different than any other direct fire weapon? Why should LRMs be special in the direct fire mode?

Having the ability to engage with indirect fire is completely unique and something no other weapon can do. I'm not sure why they should be able to avoid all terrain when no other weapon can do that. Especially since the changes I listed in direct fire mode would put them on par with every other weapon when engaging at range and able to see your opponent.

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

I have an LRM "boat" mech, it's a Highlander IIC-B.

The loadout is 4 LRM 20s, 1 ER PPC, and 1 TAG laser.

I daresay that LRMs are not in need of any real adjustment. Why? Well, consider this. I'm trundling along, suddenly a target blip appears. I press "R" and see that the mech is, say, 850m away. First contact, cool. I alpha strike my 4 LRM launchers. Precisely 2 seconds later, the target vanishes. Goodbye 80 damage.

The TAG laser is on the mech for those instances where I must get my own target locks because everyone else can't or won't get them for me. Which is fine, I can't expect someone to sacrifice their mech so I can hit someone else.

In my opinion they take some skill to use effectively, so I don't really get why people complain about them so much. I've died to a hailstorm of LRMs before, and yeah it sucks, but whatever.

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

On what target? An Atlas or a Jenner?

And 10 damage with an LRM40? That's a joke compared to the heat and tonnage involved. Might as well never fire indirect which is the entire point of the damn weapon system. Otherwise they would just be hot LB-X weapons.

So you would prefer them to be only indirect fire weapons with no ability to fire LOS? Serious question. The weakness of indirect fire mode is predicated upon them being equal to other weapons in direct fire. However, taking away the direct fire strength and increasing indirect is an option, it's just something I assume most people wouldn't want.

Assuming indirect fire only, the arc would have to be high all the time. Mortar arc compared to cannon arc if you want a RL comparison. No homing, current LRM 15/20 spread distance, lock used to put missiles on a specific piece of terrain before firing.

This would make movement pretty much a guarantee to cause misses, but stationary mechs would take damage. Most terrain would be negated except for tall buildings and overhead cover.

I think this would encourage LRM mechs to stay even farther back and be less engaged in the fight since they have no need to expose themselves to get locks as long as there are people on their team still alive. Not sure making them all out indirect is the way to go.

[Cold Darkness]

LRMs do not need comparable direct fire capacities to other weapons. they need to be more reliant on indirect fire to be able to capitalize more on enemy teams mistakes.
they are an area denial and suppression weapon. but since there are so many ways to counter them, they fall short on both ends versus experienced players. the reason why pgi cant make them work for experienced players is, that the less experienced players make to many mistakes that an artillery unit can capitalize on and wrecks them easily.

[sycocys]

If you want direct fire missiles they are already in the game.

Past that if anything LRMs need a LoS/self target/hard lock buff.

Rest of the suggestions aren't that good, LRMs are not a good weapon system they don't need to have nerfs to make them even worse.

Edited by sycocys, 30 May 2017 - 07:14 AM.

[adamts01]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

The spread can be adjusted, the point is to make sure an LRM 80 isn't doing 80 points of damage in direct fire mode at 900m against a stationary target. There has to be some misses to balance the potential power of the LRM at range. LRMs in direct fire mode should behave the same as SRMs and MRMs with the main difference being velocity, spread, and range.

Consider good players. There's zero reason to bring a weapon with any sort of spread over pinpoint. The only reason you see good players running SRMs is because they can either tighten up the spread or get close enough to land most shots on a single component. It's already hard to return meaningful fire against PPC/Gauss with hit-scan weapons, and it would be near impossible to return fire with your proposed direct fire LRMs. LRMs will never compete with direct fire weapons so moving them in that direction is pointless. And even if they did compete, imagine how much more linear and boring gameplay would be. We need electronic warfare, active/passive radars, a real ECM and BAP, and NARC/TAG to defeat those options. LRM/Spotter teams should be playing a game of chess while everyone else is playing CoD.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

So you would prefer them to be only indirect fire weapons with no ability to fire LOS?

What!? When did I say that? It just needs to be a viable option. Not a joke which is a waste of missiles. Indirect fire does not need af nerf. Or the direct fire for that matter.

And you never answered: 10 damage on what target? An Atlas or a Jenner?

LRMs need a buff, but in terms of reliability, not damage or spread. It just needs to be useful more often and not be constantly countered.

[R Valentine]

There is nothing wrong with LRMs. LRMS ARE NOT BROKEN. YOU ARE BROKEN. FIX YOURSELF. PROBLEM SOLVED. /THREAD.

[Acehilator]

We need to see what PGI wants to do with MRMs and ATMs before thinking about how to change LRMs. With the upcoming energy weapon revamp and new tech on the horizon, the next... four months are already full with weapon changes (both features are going to need some serious tweaks, no doubt about it).

And your proposed changes are horrible. Your direct fire idea is how I think/hope/guess MRMs will operate, and your indirect fire idea is just... no. Just don't. Leave my missiles alone, plz.

[Novakaine]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 07:00 AM, said:

How is that any different than any other direct fire weapon? Why should LRMs be special in the direct fire mode?

Having the ability to engage with indirect fire is completely unique and something no other weapon can do. I'm not sure why they should be able to avoid all terrain when no other weapon can do that. Especially since the changes I listed in direct fire mode would put them on par with every other weapon when engaging at range and able to see your opponent.

Because they are a ground based ballistic missle which travels in a ballistic arc.
What people are unknowingly wanting them to be are a wire guided missiles.
Which would be far worst, because I don't know about you I can keep my reticule on target.

Edited by Novakaine, 30 May 2017 - 07:29 AM.

[Almond Brown]

The reason LRM's seem to both SUCK and be OP all at the same time is because of the exact system we all carry on our Mechs for FREE. Every Mech has a (hidden) C3 computer system built in. Pressing the "R" key activates that system for an LRM based ally. LRM direct fire is totally doable but as with other direct fire weapons, standing around in the open can be detrimental to ones Mechs health.

For good or not, PGI decided a long time ago, in a far away galaxy, that asking Players, even Players of a TEAM based game, that making LRM useful would require someone else to voluntarily carry a C3 component, to assist their LRM allies, would not fly. And they were right. Players won't carry AMS ffs, take a couple Derp based Skills even to save themselves.

Imagine if PGI had forced players to carry C3 and Slave units to make LRM's even a little useful... hahahahaha.

Not liking LRM's because they "interfere" with your play style is fine, just don't be fooling with others play styles for the same reason.

Quote

A C3 Command Unit is typically carried by a heavy or assault 'Mech due to its the larger size and weight, and its importance as the hub of a C3 network. Outright destruction or interruption by ECM of a command unit is quickest way to bring down the portion of the C3 network it controls. A C3 slave weighs 1 ton.The C3 system was introduced in the year 3050 by the Draconis Combine.

Edited by Almond Brown, 30 May 2017 - 08:06 AM.

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

What!? When did I say that? It just needs to be a viable option. Not a joke which is a waste of missiles. Indirect fire does not need af nerf. Or the direct fire for that matter.

And you never answered: 10 damage on what target? An Atlas or a Jenner?

LRMs need a buff, but in terms of reliability, not damage or spread. It just needs to be useful more often and not be constantly countered.

Please note the question mark followed by the "serious question" portion. I was asking if that is your intent because it seemed to be from your response.

As for the 10 damage question, you are thinking too small. If an LRM mech like an Archer, dedicated design, is getting 20-25% hit rate on indirect fire then the 1000 missiles it carries has a potential of 200-250 damage for indirect fire alone. Without even considering how much more damage can be done by direct fire.

As to your question, I would assume the Jenner would take less than 10 damage and the Atlas would take more but it would vary since the missile impacts would be randomly spread over an area.

There is no way LRMs can be buffed and still remain a homing system. No other weapon in the game creates as much controversy than LRMs. The people wanting a change to targetting/EW have a good point but at the same time they are asking for a significant coding change, something that probably will never happen. My suggestions work on already existing code with minor adjustments.

Remove the homing aspect of LRMs and then ask how can they work as indirect fire support. I say remove homing because it's the single biggest issue with LRMs because it makes them completely OP and at the same time they can be useless if there is nothing to home in on.

So remove homing and then how can indirect fire work? Map grid where you put the cursor on an overlay and the missiles fly to that spot? Fly by wire system where they launch up and you have a marker on the ground that you adjust the point of impact? Require TAG lock and fly to the location the TAG is targeted against? All of these options either aren't coded into the game, are a poor way of using indirect fire, or require someone else in order to work.

Which leads to my suggestion where LRMs have a primary role of long range direct fire with small area of effect with a secondary role of long range indirect fire with large area of effect. The direct fire portion is just longer range MRMs. How big the missile spread is, how fast they travel, the arc they take are all things which can easily be tweaked as needed through testing. The main point is they have a specific role which requires LOS like every other weapon and provides the user a reasonable chance to do damage with similar skill to other weapons.

The secondary role of indirect fire support would be situational and something mainly used by dedicated fire support mechs. This would require a large amount of missile fire for a moderate to low damage return, but it would provide damage to otherwise untouchable mechs. Having spotters/scouts would be rewarded as well as NARC and TAG use by said spotters. The only coding change would be putting in the direct fire / indirect fire mode toggle, everything else is already in the game as well as having different mode options.

This change would reduce the number of counters for LRMs to terrain and AMS. Radar dep would be of limited to no value. AMS would be less damaging due to reduced flight time from shallower arc and shorter flight times in direct fire mode.

This would also make team coordination more rewarding for LRM use while QP would be less rewarding to LRM boats. Such a change should see reduced boating of LRMs, more people using the direct fire option, and put more emphasis in skill over button mash so homing missile can hit target.

While there have been several responses on this thread I've yet to see anything that would be considered a viable argument as to why such a system wouldn't work as intended. A lot of people assume I dislike LRMs but they are incorrect. LRMs have a place on the battlefield they are just implemented poorly and need a significant change in how they work. Which means we have to throw out our preconceived notions about LRMs and instead look at what their role on the battlefield should be and how that role can be accomplished with current game mechanics/coding. Denying there is a problem with LRMs simply shows your own bias about them.

[Savage Wolf]

There is a problem. Granted. But we highly disagree what that problem is. Currently LRMs are bad because they are highly situational and easily countered. Your suggestions makes those problems significantly worse while taking away the most unique part of the weapon system: It's indirect fire.

And you'd probably say it's still there, but unless LRM 40 deals full damage to an Atlas standing still, it might as well not be. The only weapon in the game to do indirect fire should have indirect fire as it's secondary role!? That's just ridiculous.

All you are doing is making a bad weapon worse and less unique. And by removing it's unique feature it needs to compete with already established weapons that can already do direct damage. Like I said, it would be an LB-X autocannon at best, but hotter.

I don't mind rethinking the weapon system from scratch but you need to build it for the purpose of indirect fire, it's signiture feature.

So far all suggestions on reworking LRMs seems more geared towards removing indirect fire or making it so ineffective that it might as well not be there. No one is trying to make it viable at the thing it's supposed to do. That and trying to make it an aim weapon like all the others. And don't get why this is such a priority. Must everything be aim based?

[James The Fox Dixon]

I recommend that all direct fire weapons only apply 20-25% of their damage to keep them in line with LRMs.