59 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

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.

RE: Close Range accuracy: Simple the guidance system hasn't had a chance to update its system in regards to the target which can cause the missiles to spread further out to compensate.

RE: Speed: Speed would be capped at a maximum 277 meters per second which would be when they are coming down into their target.

RE: Best Weapon: This would not make LRMs the best weapon in the game. It will bring them up to where the rest of the weapons are at. The damage remains the same as does the number of missiles hit table will remain unchanged. To be accurate, they would need to have a guidance system relaying information to it i.e. NARC/Artemis/TAG/Lock. Upon loss of lock, they would impact the area and do area damage to anything in its immediate vicinity of 30 meters.

Re: Homing Mechanic: It's no less overpowering then pinpoint accuracy with zero cone of fire or RNG on hit location for direct fire weapons. Either direct fire weapons use Cone of Fire and RNG to determine hits or we bring LRMs up to par with homing.

No, my suggestions make LRMs a viable weapon that does what it is supposed to do. That is indirect fire.

How do you build a direct fire weapon that has pinpoint accuracy beyond 1km range and not be overpowered? As it stands, a gauss rifle, AC2/5, PPCs, and ERLL go out to over 1km. Yet, I hear nobody whining about those overpowered weapons. Is it because you aim the reticle and shoot while you aren't required to lock your target? Should we include on direct fire weapons the same restriction that LRMs need for indirect fire in that the shooter must have a lock?

You don't like the idea because you want your point and click warrior and you definitely hate LRMs. I can see the bias as plain as day.

[Ruar]

I don't like the idea because I've played WoT with strong indirect fire. It's just that simple. And even then the indirect fire missed more than it hit whereas you want to have homing indirect fire. It's just bad.

The direct fire weapons you talked about require aiming. That ERLL has to be held on target for the duration of the burn. The AC2 and PPC have to lead their targets. The AC2 has to adjust for movement on two planes since the rounds drop.

There is so much more difficulty aiming direct fire weapons than using the lock system and homing missiles of an LRM. There is just no comparison to which is more difficult.

That being said, I'm actually ok with getting rid of the current weapon convergence and having a wider spread on direct fire weapons. I doubt it gets implemented, but it should definitely happen.

I'm not biased which makes my opinion even more valuable because I don't have a dog in the race. I can use LRMs when I want and do ok, I can avoid them when I want and do ok, I can play the game with our without LRMs and do ok.

Which is why I can identify the problem and suggest a way to solve that problem while still having a viable weapon.


I'm still waiting for a viable suggestion on how to have indirect homing weapons that are not overpowered.

[cazidin]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

I don't like the idea because I've played WoT with strong indirect fire. It's just that simple. And even then the indirect fire missed more than it hit whereas you want to have homing indirect fire. It's just bad.

The direct fire weapons you talked about require aiming. That ERLL has to be held on target for the duration of the burn. The AC2 and PPC have to lead their targets. The AC2 has to adjust for movement on two planes since the rounds drop.

There is so much more difficulty aiming direct fire weapons than using the lock system and homing missiles of an LRM. There is just no comparison to which is more difficult.

That being said, I'm actually ok with getting rid of the current weapon convergence and having a wider spread on direct fire weapons. I doubt it gets implemented, but it should definitely happen.

I'm not biased which makes my opinion even more valuable because I don't have a dog in the race. I can use LRMs when I want and do ok, I can avoid them when I want and do ok, I can play the game with our without LRMs and do ok.

Which is why I can identify the problem and suggest a way to solve that problem while still having a viable weapon.


I'm still waiting for a viable suggestion on how to have indirect homing weapons that are not overpowered.

LRMs simply aren't overpowered and they can't be when you have no fewer than FOUR HARD COUNTERS to ONE weapon system. You have ECM, which is heavily nerfed right now because of the skill tree. Radar Deprivation, which at least partly negates target decay and was formerly quite powerful. AMS, which works to shoot out any missiles coming from the sky and are super effective against Clan LRMs because of the stream fire. Lastly, ROCKS. Any cover you can find, even trees because of they're ultra large hitboxes, can protect you from LRMs.

LRMs are not a serious threat, and this is coming from somebody who has, I admit, BEEN DESTROYED by LRM spam while fighting against a pilot who knew not only what he was doing in that chassis but HOW TO USE LRMS PROPERLY. They are a threat, but are easily mitigated.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

I don't like the idea because I've played WoT with strong indirect fire. It's just that simple. And even then the indirect fire missed more than it hit whereas you want to have homing indirect fire. It's just bad.

The direct fire weapons you talked about require aiming. That ERLL has to be held on target for the duration of the burn. The AC2 and PPC have to lead their targets. The AC2 has to adjust for movement on two planes since the rounds drop.

There is so much more difficulty aiming direct fire weapons than using the lock system and homing missiles of an LRM. There is just no comparison to which is more difficult.

That being said, I'm actually ok with getting rid of the current weapon convergence and having a wider spread on direct fire weapons. I doubt it gets implemented, but it should definitely happen.

I'm not biased which makes my opinion even more valuable because I don't have a dog in the race. I can use LRMs when I want and do ok, I can avoid them when I want and do ok, I can play the game with our without LRMs and do ok.

Which is why I can identify the problem and suggest a way to solve that problem while still having a viable weapon.


I'm still waiting for a viable suggestion on how to have indirect homing weapons that are not overpowered.

Well too bad because I don't like the idea of pinpoint weapons having over 1km range, but I live with it. Artillery is a valuable tool as much as direct fire weapons. If it wasn't a valuable asset then why do we have Air Strikes and Artillery in the game?

And LRMs requiring aiming. To claim otherwise shows ignorance on your part of how they work.

If you didn't have a dog in this race then you wouldn't have sat there defending the belief that LRMs are a direct fire weapon. They are not and have never been one.

I gave you one and you didn't like it. No, you want to nerf LRMs into something they are not and have never been. This is why I said you are biased and your first sentence in your last reply bears this out. You don't like artillery because it ruins your point and click warrior that uses twitch and muscle memory without any true skill on placing your damage.

[Ruar]

cazidin, on 30 May 2017 - 06:31 PM, said:

LRMs simply aren't overpowered and they can't be when you have no fewer than FOUR HARD COUNTERS to ONE weapon system. You have ECM, which is heavily nerfed right now because of the skill tree. Radar Deprivation, which at least partly negates target decay and was formerly quite powerful. AMS, which works to shoot out any missiles coming from the sky and are super effective against Clan LRMs because of the stream fire. Lastly, ROCKS. Any cover you can find, even trees because of they're ultra large hitboxes, can protect you from LRMs.

LRMs are not a serious threat, and this is coming from somebody who has, I admit, BEEN DESTROYED by LRM spam while fighting against a pilot who knew not only what he was doing in that chassis but HOW TO USE LRMS PROPERLY. They are a threat, but are easily mitigated.

Yep, and I'm trying to make them not as easy to mitigate in the direct fire role while also still having an indirect capability. Seems kind of win/win.

[cazidin]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Yep, and I'm trying to make them not as easy to mitigate in the direct fire role while also still having an indirect capability. Seems kind of win/win.

I understand what you're proposing and why but... we have SRMs and we'll have MRMs. LRMs won't work as you propose because they'll just be weaker, slower than either of those. They don't need a fundamental change because there simply isn't much wrong with their basic principles. Maybe a higher or SLIGHTLY lower firing arc could help but beyond that? I wouldn't change much about them.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Well too bad because I don't like the idea of pinpoint weapons having over 1km range, but I live with it. Artillery is a valuable tool as much as direct fire weapons. If it wasn't a valuable asset then why do we have Air Strikes and Artillery in the game?

And LRMs requiring aiming. To claim otherwise shows ignorance on your part of how they work.

If you didn't have a dog in this race then you wouldn't have sat there defending the belief that LRMs are a direct fire weapon. They are not and have never been one.

I gave you one and you didn't like it. No, you want to nerf LRMs into something they are not and have never been. This is why I said you are biased and your first sentence in your last reply bears this out. You don't like artillery because it ruins your point and click warrior that uses twitch and muscle memory without any true skill on placing your damage.

And I am done responding unless you can create a logical argument. The very fact you think there is no skill required to aim in this game shows how truly out of touch you are with gaming in general and MWO specifically.

I wish you a good day.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

And I am done responding unless you can create a logical argument. The very fact you think there is no skill required to aim in this game shows how truly out of touch you are with gaming in general and MWO specifically.

I wish you a good day.

I gave you a logical argument and you are the one that refuses to put forth one. Nope, you'd rather just keep dancing around and around and around without coming up with a decent counter to it. No, you give me whines and cries about why you hate LRMs and artillery in general.

Nope, there is no skill under your "logic" which is what I used to drive my point home.

[Ruar]

cazidin, on 30 May 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

I understand what you're proposing and why but... we have SRMs and we'll have MRMs. LRMs won't work as you propose because they'll just be weaker, slower than either of those. They don't need a fundamental change because there simply isn't much wrong with their basic principles. Maybe a higher or SLIGHTLY lower firing arc could help but beyond that? I wouldn't change much about them.

Neither SRMs or MRMs provide long range capability. Neither provide any type of indirect option.

I assume MRMs are going to do about 1.5 points of damage while LRMs do 1 pt of damage. Both can travel the same speed in order to be effective at the longer distances. The LRM can also hit indirectly maintaining a unique status beyond being somewhat weak at 1km direct fire.

That provides uniqueness for each missile system, gets rid of the main complaints with LRMs, and ensures each missile system fill a needed role.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Neither SRMs or MRMs provide long range capability. Neither provide any type of indirect option.

I assume MRMs are going to do about 1.5 points of damage while LRMs do 1 pt of damage. Both can travel the same speed in order to be effective at the longer distances. The LRM can also hit indirectly maintaining a unique status beyond being somewhat weak at 1km direct fire.

That provides uniqueness for each missile system, gets rid of the main complaints with LRMs, and ensures each missile system fill a needed role.

That's because SRMs and MRMs are direct fire missiles like man-portable Dragon missiles. LRMs are like cruise missiles and are indirect fire and according to the write up of the weapon system they are superb at long range i.e. 1km out then they are at short range 180m-360m. That's what FASA wrote dude.

MRMs: Compared to other missile types, Medium Range Missiles are dead-fire missiles that are fired more like autocannons and lasers. The removal of guidance systems makes each missile more compact... http://www.sarna.net...m_Range_Missile

SRMs: Short Range Missile technology has been expanded upon since it was first introduced, most notably the Streak SRM guidance system introduced in 2647. (Standard SRMs are dumb fire while SSRMs are not.) http://www.sarna.net...t_Range_Missile

LRMs: Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve their superior range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. http://www.sarna.net...g_Range_Missile

That's the universe and I didn't write it. Notice that Clan LRMs are exempt from this as they fire either directly or indirectly due to advances in guidance systems as well as being fired horizontally or ballistic.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 30 May 2017 - 06:49 PM.

[Foxfire kadrpg]

I'd like to see LRM spread and cooldown standardized between tube count.

One suggestion I would make that might soothe the people decimated by LRMs is for a Lock-on Warning sound to be introduced, not 'bitchin' Betty's "Incoming Missiles" alert AFTER they have been launched, but something like a high pitched whine or just B.B. saying "Enemy Lockon" while the enemy is still getting a lock. Give the Novice I-don't-know-why-I-should-move-to-cover-beforehand players a little more guidance that where they are currently in the battlefield is visible to the enemy and they should move.

LRMs are not a problem. Players having no clue about LRM mechanics or what OTHER people see on the battlefield is.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

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.

That's the wrong question. The real question is, does indirect fire add anything to the game? And yes, yes it does. It adds a whole new dynamic and depth to the game. Without it, all you ever need to consider is if the enemy has LOS and if not, you were safe. Except a few times when I used air strikes to hit a target behind a wall. Without this dynamic, the combat becomes too simplistic. Only other factor would be jump jets.

So it's all for the purpose of adding more options to the gameplay.

And please, stop trying to fix potato behaviour by ruining an aspect of the game and a weapon along with it. It won't work. They are potatoes, they will always exist and they will always run bad builds and bad tactics. If all you wanted was to fix them then change the mechanics to reward good LRM usage better instead.

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

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

What homing/targeting problems?

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Neither SRMs or MRMs provide long range capability. Neither provide any type of indirect option.

Neither does LRMs and so indirect fire is the only real reason to take them and you try to nerf that. MRMs really solidifies that the reason to take LRMs is only because of indirect fire.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

I don't like the idea because I've played WoT with strong indirect fire. It's just that simple. And even then the indirect fire missed more than it hit whereas you want to have homing indirect fire. It's just bad.

The direct fire weapons you talked about require aiming. That ERLL has to be held on target for the duration of the burn. The AC2 and PPC have to lead their targets. The AC2 has to adjust for movement on two planes since the rounds drop.

There is so much more difficulty aiming direct fire weapons than using the lock system and homing missiles of an LRM. There is just no comparison to which is more difficult.

Yes, it's more difficult to aim with direct fire weapons, not much with lasers since it's just point and click. But LRMs need to keep a lock until missiles have hit or you will miss. So you also need to face tank while firing. Yes, with indirect fire your enemy can't shoot you back, but his friends probably can.

But those weapons don't have to take into account the arc of firing and travel time. I need to be able to predict of the enemy can still be hit by the time missiles arrive. No other weapon has this difficulty involved with using them.

There are other skills than aiming and they are equally valid. Also, you greatly exaggerate the difficulty of aiming in this game. It's really not that hard. That and those weapons can fire instantly. LRMs needs to wait for a lock.

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'm not biased which makes my opinion even more valuable because I don't have a dog in the race. I can use LRMs when I want and do ok, I can avoid them when I want and do ok, I can play the game with our without LRMs and do ok.

Which is why I can identify the problem and suggest a way to solve that problem while still having a viable weapon.

We are all biased. It's human nature. To think otherwise is to delude yourself. In the end there are no objective truths here. We are simply debating what is most fun. You have your opinions about what is fun and you take those bias'es into this discussion no matter how hard you try not to.

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for a viable suggestion on how to have indirect homing weapons that are not overpowered.

How about the current one. It's even underpowered. LRMs still aren't competitive. Which is why there is no need to nerf. We need to fix.

[Vellron2005]

As far as I can see, here's the jist of EVERY LRM THREAD EVER..

LRM haters say: Nerf LRMs, LRMs OP! Nerf nerf nerf!

LRM Lovers say: LRMs not OP, LRMs need buffs! Buff buff buff!

As a LRM user, and a lover of LRMs, here's what I say..

LRMs are FINE.

Leave them as they are.. Especially with the oncoming ATMs and MRMs.. let's wait and see..

Right now, LRMs are fine.. they don't need buffs, don't need nerfs, don't need base mechanic changes.. They are FINE as they are..

[Ruar]

Vellron2005, on 31 May 2017 - 02:46 AM, said:

As far as I can see, here's the jist of EVERY LRM THREAD EVER..

LRM haters say: Nerf LRMs, LRMs OP! Nerf nerf nerf!

LRM Lovers say: LRMs not OP, LRMs need buffs! Buff buff buff!

As a LRM user, and a lover of LRMs, here's what I say..

LRMs are FINE.

Leave them as they are.. Especially with the oncoming ATMs and MRMs.. let's wait and see..

Right now, LRMs are fine.. they don't need buffs, don't need nerfs, don't need base mechanic changes.. They are FINE as they are..

If this was true then why is the weapon with the most counters in the game as the same weapon with the most amount of debate on the forums. Not just recently, but since I've been playing the game LRMs have been the single biggest point of contention.

If they were fine I can't see why so many people think they need fixed. And please, fixing them doesn't mean nerf, it means a fundamental change to make them on par with the other weapons.


As for your response Savage, you didn't present a persuasive argument. I already explained why indirect is not needed in MWO. At the same time my suggestions to fix LRMs still leave an indirect fire option. If you want to convince me you have to show why LRMs need to be a strong indirect fire weapon and then show how to make them focus solely on indirect fire with a minor role in the direct fire role. They can't be strong at both otherwise you end up with what we have now, 4-6 mechs per team running LRMs because they can be used on any target that isn't immediately behind cover and at least one person on the team has spotted.

[cazidin]

Vellron2005, on 31 May 2017 - 02:46 AM, said:

As far as I can see, here's the jist of EVERY LRM THREAD EVER..

LRM haters say: Nerf LRMs, LRMs OP! Nerf nerf nerf!

LRM Lovers say: LRMs not OP, LRMs need buffs! Buff buff buff!

As a LRM user, and a lover of LRMs, here's what I say..

LRMs are FINE.

Leave them as they are.. Especially with the oncoming ATMs and MRMs.. let's wait and see..

Right now, LRMs are fine.. they don't need buffs, don't need nerfs, don't need base mechanic changes.. They are FINE as they are..

"And in the third category, Emperor Cazidin just says... whatever he wants. We try not to give him attention but those damn clickbait thread titles keep drawing us in!"

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

If this was true then why is the weapon with the most counters in the game as the same weapon with the most amount of debate on the forums. Not just recently, but since I've been playing the game LRMs have been the single biggest point of contention.

If they were fine I can't see why so many people think they need fixed. And please, fixing them doesn't mean nerf, it means a fundamental change to make them on par with the other weapons.

The amount of counters is based on TT, not balance. They didn't introduce anything simply to nerf LRMs. LRMs wasn't OP back when ECM wasn't in yet and ECM needed to be nerfed serveral times since because it made LRMs totally unviable.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

If they were fine I can't see why so many people think they need fixed. And please, fixing them doesn't mean nerf, it means a fundamental change to make them on par with the other weapons.

Then why does everyones suggestions nerf them? Including yours?

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

As for your response Savage, you didn't present a persuasive argument. I already explained why indirect is not needed in MWO.

That's because it was irrelevant. Otherwise I could ask why is direct fire needed in MWO? It's strickly not. It's just more if it's there. Same with indirect fire.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

At the same time my suggestions to fix LRMs still leave an indirect fire option.

Yay, by that logic if LRM20s still have indirect fire but only deals 1 damage, you think it's fine. The reason we use the weapon is indirect fire and by making that worse, you make the the weapon worse. It doesn't help to buff direct fire because you'd need to buff it drasticly or so to make it worth taking for direct fire. And we are already getting that weapon, it's called MRMs.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

If you want to convince me you have to show why LRMs need to be a strong indirect fire weapon and then show how to make them focus solely on indirect fire with a minor role in the direct fire role.

No, this is your thread. You need to convince me.
And if you really aren't biased you'd also need to see things from my perspective as someone who's experience is enhanced by the presence of this weapon. Whether using them or being used against me.
You sound more like one who does not enjoy a certain playstyle and so wants no one to have it. You know the counters so you shouldn't have trouble with them yourself. No, you are angry at the ones that play the playstyle. How dare they play differently.
And it's not even because they perform well, because you only talk about the LRMers in the back, siiting still waiting for locks. You don't want them to succeed. They don't, they lose games, so your wish is already granted.
But they still do it, and you get angry. We must destroy them completely. Damned be that there are good LRM players whose fun is ruined in the process. And you naively think that will make potatoes less potato.

If you suggestion or any other that nerfs LRMs goes through the potatoes will remain. Back when everyone and their dog was under an ECM bubble, they were still there. Stop trying to fix potatoes. You can't. And if you must, why exclusively the LRM potatoes, why not the laser potatoes or flamer potatoes? Is it bias?

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

They can't be strong at both otherwise you end up with what we have now, 4-6 mechs per team running LRMs because they can be used on any target that isn't immediately behind cover and at least one person on the team has spotted.

They, aren't strong at both. They are bad direct weapons. Any other direct fire weapon is better at direct fire. So there, you already got your wish.
And hell, nerf their direct fire if you must, although there is little need.
If they were fine I can't see why so many people think they need fixed. And please, fixing them doesn't mean nerf, it means a fundamental change to make them on par with the other weapons.

[Ruar]

Actually, no I don't need to convince you. If anything I need to convince the devs, which I have no faith will actually happen. The entire point of the thread was to create discussion, refine my ideas on what would work, and see if there was something I was missing in my recommendation. Based on the responses I'm extremely confident my suggestions would provide a very nice solution to the LRM problem.

Honestly, your entire argument boils down to "we need indirect fire". Then you point to LRMs and say "they need to be strong at indirect fire" while ignoring the fact they have pretty much the same performance in both direct and indirect fire modes. When there is a clear field of fire and a target is locked then LRMs are incredibly strong, doing significant damage at medium and short ranges on almost any target. When there is no clear field of fire or no lock then LRMs are worthless and do nothing.

They aren't a strong indirect weapon, they are a strong weapon with a serious gap between good performance and poor performance. I'm trying to figure out a way to bridge that gap and still have a unique weapon system.

As for your last part, you honestly can't say LRMs are bad at direct fire. Watch a heavy or assault move across open ground 400m out and the stream of LRMs that pound them into scrap. That's direct fire at it's finest.

I realize I'm not going to convince you though, which is fine, that's not my goal. I appreciate your point of view but I feel you've pretty much brought nothing to this discussion. I thank you for your time and the civil conversation even if I wish there was more logic and reasoning behind your response.

Have a good day.

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

Actually, no I don't need to convince you. If anything I need to convince the devs, which I have no faith will actually happen. The entire point of the thread was to create discussion, refine my ideas on what would work, and see if there was something I was missing in my recommendation. Based on the responses I'm extremely confident my suggestions would provide a very nice solution to the LRM problem.

Could you please explain exactly what problem you think you are solving?

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

Honestly, your entire argument boils down to "we need indirect fire". Then you point to LRMs and say "they need to be strong at indirect fire" while ignoring the fact they have pretty much the same performance in both direct and indirect fire modes. When there is a clear field of fire and a target is locked then LRMs are incredibly strong, doing significant damage at medium and short ranges on almost any target. When there is no clear field of fire or no lock then LRMs are worthless and do nothing.

Yes, we do need indirect fire or else all weapons are essentially the same.
And actually LRMs perform a little better with direct fire than indirect because you have better control of the lock and can better predict the enemy. A little better. And they are still the worst direct fire weapon in the game (relative to tonnage). So that should tell you about how great the indirect fire is. And indirect fire doesn't need to be on par with the other direct fire weapons and they are not. But they still need to be viable to be primariy chosen for that role.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

They aren't a strong indirect weapon, they are a strong weapon with a serious gap between good performance and poor performance. I'm trying to figure out a way to bridge that gap and still have a unique weapon system.

Yet, the thing you are most adamant about it removing the one thing that makes it unique. And your solution is mostly to make it more like all the others and especially MRMs.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

As for your last part, you honestly can't say LRMs are bad at direct fire. Watch a heavy or assault move across open ground 400m out and the stream of LRMs that pound them into scrap. That's direct fire at it's finest.

That's also Heavies and Assaults being potatoes. Don't cross huge open areas. And you honestly believe that under those circumstances that Gauss/PPC wouldn't be far superior? So idiot tactics would still get you killed even without LRMs in the game. The only direct fire weapons inferior to LRMs in that situation would be those with insufficient range.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

I realize I'm not going to convince you though, which is fine, that's not my goal. I appreciate your point of view but I feel you've pretty much brought nothing to this discussion. I thank you for your time and the civil conversation even if I wish there was more logic and reasoning behind your response.

I wished it was more civil though. I like a good debate, but that requires that you take your opponent seriously and you seemed to flat out try. You don't have to agree to see the side and acknowledge that from their point of view, there is a case to be made. Appears you just wanted be confirmed in your own beliefs instead of testing them.
We cannot have kept a discussion going for this long and not have contributed something. Your dismissal of everything you did not agree with can at this point best be described as arrogant and stubborn. The claim that I did not explain my reasoning when we have pages of it here clearly proves that to be false. The fact that you do not agree does not mean it's void of logic.

And I too could not continue to be civil in the end. Being constantly dismissed without argument or simply ignored followed be remarks that I did not oppose your argument is frustrating. But I guess we shall agree to end here, because without engagement into the discussion by you, I would simply keep repeating myself.

Good day.

[cazidin]

I wonder what would happen if PGI honestly looked at this thread. Would they see it as vindication and nerf LRMs or would they consider the counterpoints and how many people disagree with, at least, his personal proposal and keep them as they are?