59 replies to this topic

[RestosIII]

Wait wait wait. No homing on direct fire? Are you just trying to make MRMs here?

[Dariq Sayid]

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

There has to be some kind of trade off for firing from safety and still doing damage.

Smart Hunters in Lights and fast Mediums.

Play smart, don't bother asking for nerfs/buffs for something that doesn't really need it.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

Reading through the multitude of LRM threads

Anything I'm missing?

Yes, consider just consolidating your thoughts into one thread instead of having 3 on the go.

[cazidin]

LRMs don't need to change. Players do. They are still the worst weapon in the game, arguably tied with SSRMs IMO. The ONLY reason you see them more frequently now is because ECM and Radar Deprivation were heavily nerfed.

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

Dariq Sayid, on 30 May 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Smart Hunters in Lights and fast Mediums.

Play smart, don't bother asking for nerfs/buffs for something that doesn't really need it.

This. So much.

In my LRM boat, when a light mech closes with me I'm in trouble and I know it.

[Oldbob10025]

I chuckle at all the posts from Tier 1 pilots that go on rants and raves about how LRM's should be nerfed or adjusted or what not. Then post and make fun of all the Tier 5 pilots that used them or bring them in a game saying they are the worst weapon in the game...

[Ruar]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

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?

The question becomes, is there really a need for a dedicated indirect fire weapon in MWO? I've played WoT where having artillery was needed because heavy armor could clog a choke point and there was no way to root them out. Indirect fire was needed to break up that kind of concentration.

MWO though has no need for such a weapon. The fights are fluid, terrain is negated by jump jets, and armor can't bounce shots.

So why have a dedicated indirect fire weapon? In BT it made sense because it was turn based and possible to hit stationary areas, but it just doesn't translate to FPS.

If there truly is a need for an indirect fire weapon then that is all it should be able to do. Which is not what LRMs are currently. They are a hybrid weapon between indirect and direct and have a massive crutch in the form of the homing mechanic.

I think the true problem with LRMs is they are trying to fill an unneeded role due to a poor crossover attempt. This makes them either overpowered or worthless with very little middle ground. It discourages using the weapon as a long range option to fill out a build and encourages poor builds/poor play.

I could be wrong though. So convince me there is a need for indirect fire in MWO and then provide a mechanic for LRMs to fill that role without homing.

RestosIII, on 30 May 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

Wait wait wait. No homing on direct fire? Are you just trying to make MRMs here?

Pretty much, with an indirect fire option. MRM mechanics make a lot more sense than the current homing/targeting problems.

[Ted Wayz]

You must really get worked over by LRMs on a frequent basis. Based upon most people pointing out the numerous counters and the fact that LRMs just underwent two nerfs...with all due respect...and I don't say this often...read up on how to counter LRMs...and git gud.

[Ruar]

Ted Wayz, on 30 May 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

You must really get worked over by LRMs on a frequent basis. Based upon most people pointing out the numerous counters and the fact that LRMs just underwent two nerfs...with all due respect...and I don't say this often...read up on how to counter LRMs...and git gud.

Lol.

Just because I like to theory craft doesn't mean I have problems with that weapon/mech/etc in game. I rarely take much LRM damage and it's been a long time since the last time I was killed by them.

However, just because something doesn't bother me personally doesn't mean I can't see the value in suggesting fixes to flaws I see.

[Fiona Marshe]

Been asking for an arc toggle button for years. Short range direct fire without a lock is difficult due to the (seemingly random) curve of flight. One salvo arcs high at ~60 degrees while the next launches at ~30 degrees into the hillside.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Fiona Marshe, on 30 May 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Been asking for an arc toggle button for years. Short range direct fire without a lock is difficult due to the (seemingly random) curve of flight. One salvo arcs high at ~60 degrees while the next launches at ~30 degrees into the hillside.

Oh my, you just described in LOS indirect fire... prepare to be hated by people that hate LRMs.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Oh my, you just described in LOS indirect fire... prepare to be hated by people that hate LRMs.

Apparently you didn't read the OP where I specifically said shallow arc for direct, LOS fire and then toggle to high arc for indirect fire. It's almost as if people just see the first two or three sentences and then skip straight to posting.

[Cyrion]

Every ton of LRM ammo costs 5 mill Cbills. You have to rebuy any LRM ammo you used after each match. Problem solved. I'll be waiting at the mailbox for my check, PGI. You're welcome.

And the problem isn't LRMs themselves. It's all the people that waste an Assault slot on your team with a mech w/ LRMs and ZERO backup weapons who inevitably hide in the back and don't share armor/contribute. And let's be honest. It's usually MULTIPLE Assault slots on your team.

Edited by Cyrion, 30 May 2017 - 04:50 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

Apparently you didn't read the OP where I specifically said shallow arc for direct, LOS fire and then toggle to high arc for indirect fire. It's almost as if people just see the first two or three sentences and then skip straight to posting.

I'll give an expert on the matter.

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

As a United States Marine qualified in everything from pistols to machine guns, grenade launchers, to mortars and everything in between, I know all about direct and indirect-fire. Anything you point and shoot (fire directly) is (regardless of whether or not you have to compensate for bullet drop caused by gravity) a direct-fire weapon. Anything you have to fire in a high arc (indirectly, as in going up before coming back down) is an indirect-fire weapon. Now, if there is another mortarman or an artilleryman here that knows ballistics like I do, I would like to hear their assessment as well since expect opinions are usually not a bad thing.

They are indirect weapons regardless of LOS.

Cyrion, on 30 May 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:

Every ton of LRM ammo costs 5 mill Cbills. You have to rebuy any LRM ammo you used after each match. Problem solved. I'll be waiting at the mailbox for my check, PGI. You're welcome.

And the problem isn't LRMs themselves. It's all the people that waste an Assault slot on your team with a mech w/ LRMs and ZERO backup weapons who inevitably hide in the back and don't share armor/contribute. And let's be honest. It's usually MULTIPLE Assault slots on your team.

Oh I remember when PGI had repair and rearm. LRMs and SRMS got hosed big time with the ammo cost being more than it was to repair a cored out mech while match rewards didn't scale, so these pilots ended up going in the red.

If you want repair and rearm back then direct fire weapons must cost millions of c-bills to replace/repair. It's only fair.

[MechaBattler]

I like the idea of buffing direct fire for LRMs. And nerfing indirect fire, outside of narc and possibly tag bonuses.

But it's not just to punish people sitting in the back. I would also like LRMs to be a practical addition to a build. Not just something you only boat. I feel like a big part of that is reducing the min distance penalty and decreasing lock time when using them at around 450 meter distance. Among other changes.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

I'll give an expert on the matter.



They are indirect weapons regardless of LOS.



Oh I remember when PGI had repair and rearm. LRMs and SRMS got hosed big time with the ammo cost being more than it was to repair a cored out mech while match rewards didn't scale, so these pilots ended up going in the red.

If you want repair and rearm back then direct fire weapons must cost millions of c-bills to replace/repair. It's only fair.

The howitzer is capable of both direct and indirect fire.

AC's have a shallow arc when they travel long distances. I would expect LRMs to have a bit more than ACs but still not so much that it can't be used on moving targets. Then switch modes so you fire in a high arc for indirect.

Heck, if LRMs absolutely have to be strong in the indirect role then they could just have a high arc all the time and good luck hitting anything that is in close. Which is why I'm a fan of both modes with the primary focus being direct fire and the secondary role of indirect still being an option.

MechaBattler, on 30 May 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

I like the idea of buffing direct fire for LRMs. And nerfing indirect fire, outside of narc and possibly tag bonuses.

But it's not just to punish people sitting in the back. I would also like LRMs to be a practical addition to a build. Not just something you only boat. I feel like a big part of that is reducing the min distance penalty and decreasing lock time when using them at around 450 meter distance. Among other changes.

I think the homing concept has to be removed, it's just too strong. Then they can play around with velocity, missile spread, arc height, etc. in order to get a direct fire weapon for long range.

I'd love to slap an LRM10 on one of my skirmish mechs to give me some ability to project fire at long range, but currently the lock mechanic is just too cumbersome. Having a direct fire weapon I just point and click like an AC or PPC but be a missile system would be awesome. I am looking forward to MRMs.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

The howitzer is capable of both direct and indirect fire.

AC's have a shallow arc when they travel long distances. I would expect LRMs to have a bit more than ACs but still not so much that it can't be used on moving targets. Then switch modes so you fire in a high arc for indirect.

Heck, if LRMs absolutely have to be strong in the indirect role then they could just have a high arc all the time and good luck hitting anything that is in close. Which is why I'm a fan of both modes with the primary focus being direct fire and the secondary role of indirect still being an option.

I get what you are saying, but why are you turning an indirect weapon into a direct one? You have missile systems that are direct, SRMs/MRMs/SSRMs/ATMs, so the only defining and differentiating feature between them and LRMs is that LRMs are indirect. I'd go the opposite direction and buff indirect while nerfing direct. I did make a thread about this idea, so take a gander at it and let me know what you think.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

I get what you are saying, but why are you turning an indirect weapon into a direct one? You have missile systems that are direct, SRMs/MRMs/SSRMs/ATMs, so the only defining and differentiating feature between them and LRMs is that LRMs are indirect. I'd go the opposite direction and buff indirect while nerfing direct. I did make a thread about this idea, so take a gander at it and let me know what you think.

Read your thread, didn't post because you leave homing as a part of the mechanic. You buff indirect fire, leave in the homing part, and create an even worse situation. If you haven't played WoT then you really should to understand just how truly abysmal strong indirect fire is in this type of game.

I posted earlier in regards to why I think there isn't a need for strong indirect fire in the game. Read that post to see why my opinion is based on the idea of strong direct, weak indirect.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

Read your thread, didn't post because you leave homing as a part of the mechanic. You buff indirect fire, leave in the homing part, and create an even worse situation. If you haven't played WoT then you really should to understand just how truly abysmal strong indirect fire is in this type of game.

I posted earlier in regards to why I think there isn't a need for strong indirect fire in the game. Read that post to see why my opinion is based on the idea of strong direct, weak indirect.

I left homing alone since they're guided missiles and the homing is just fine where it is at. These are not dumb fire missiles like the way SRMs are portrayed in MWO. The way I wrote it up was that they lose accuracy the closer the target is to the firing mech because that is what the text says for the weapon. They get more accurate the further out you go to maximum range. Yes, it is the complete opposite of a direct fired weapon and that is because they are. A cruise missile gets more accurate the longer it travels to its target and it gets faster. That is the opposite of say gauss rifles which are more accurate at shorter ranges and loses speed as it travels further out. Why? Because LRMs have motors plus onboard guidance and gauss and other direct fire weapons, except SRMs, do not.

So you want to turn them into SRMs and make the mechs that use them extremely weak at less then 180 meters. Gotcha. That's shooting fish in the barrel.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 30 May 2017 - 05:24 PM.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

I left homing alone since they're guided missiles and the homing is just fine where it is at. These are not dumb fire missiles like the way SRMs are portrayed in MWO. The way I wrote it up was that they lose accuracy the closer the target is to the firing mech because that is what the text says for the weapon. They get more accurate the further out you go to maximum range. Yes, it is the complete opposite of a direct fired weapon and that is because they are. A cruise missile gets more accurate the longer it travels to its target and it gets faster. That is the opposite of say gauss rifles which are more accurate at shorter ranges and loses speed as it travels further out. Why? Because LRMs have motors plus onboard guidance and gauss and other direct fire weapons, except SRMs, do not.

So you want to turn them into SRMs and make the mechs that use them extremely weak at less then 180 meters. Gotcha. That's shooting fish in the barrel.

Your write up doesn't explain how they lose accuracy at close range. Does the spread get dramatically larger as it comes out of the launcher only to tighten up as it gets farther away?

You say increase velocity the farther the missiles travel. Is there a maximum speed or do they just keep getting faster until they hit?


Have you truly thought through the idea of LRMs that are more accurate then current with reduced flight time because they are traveling faster? Do you really just want everyone bringing LRMs because they are the best weapon in the game?


The homing mechanic causes significant problems because it allows for precise long range fire on targets behind cover. It also means mechs shifting positions don't require leading or any real aiming. Just keep the crosshairs near the target and spam the missiles. Homing is the reason no other weapon has as many counters as LRMs. At the same time if there is no target lock, or the target lock is frequently broken, then LRMs become worthless. It's pretty much feast or famine.

Your suggestions will just make the feast even more painful while doing nothing to address the famine.

How do you build an indirect fire weapon that homes in on the target and keep it from being completely overpowered? I have yet to see anyone provide a viable option.