29 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

So what would be the negatives to making it so LRMs only home if there is a NARC or TAG lock?

Postiives-

Fewer LRM boats in QP

Spotting/scouting is needed

NARC becomes desired

Forces LRM boats to get LOS if no spotter, or carry NARC

Negatives-

?



Seems kind of win/win. Rewards teamwork and reduces the issues with LRM boats and LRMs in general.

[RestosIII]

Suddenly, LRMs are an incredibly situational weapon.

No other weapon system in the game requires ANOTHER weapon system to be used properly.

LRMs are already mediocre weapon systems.

There'd be no point in taking LRMs into solo play due to the DPS cut you'd have to make equipping TAG/NARC's instead of an extra laser or missile launcher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's an idea: Learn to use cover properly while moving into a position where you can thwack the LRM carriers around up close. Or just poke out, shoot them, then go back into cover. Or equip AMS. Or radar derp. Or ECM. If you see an LRM carrier shooting a friend, poke out and shoot the LRM carrier back, since he's too occupied trying to hold his lock so his LRMs will actually hit the person he fired at.

LRMs are the easiest weapon system for me to counter in this entire game. I have more reliable deaths due to flamers and MGs than LRMs. You just need to think a bit before you go running towards the enemy.

Edited by RestosIII, 29 May 2017 - 08:48 PM.

[Ruar]

RestosIII, on 29 May 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Suddenly, LRMs are an incredibly situational weapon.

No other weapon system in the game requires ANOTHER weapon system to be used properly.

LRMs are already mediocre weapon systems.

There'd be no point in taking LRMs into solo play due to the DPS cut you'd have to make equipping TAG/NARC's instead of an extra laser or missile launcher.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here's an idea: Learn to use cover properly while moving into a position where you can thwack the LRM carriers around up close. Or just poke out, shoot them, then go back into cover. Or equip AMS. Or radar derp. Or ECM. If you see an LRM carrier shooting a friend, poke out and shoot the LRM carrier back, since he's too occupied trying to hold his lock so his LRMs will actually hit the person he fired at.

LRMs are the easiest weapon system for me to counter in this entire game. I have more reliable deaths due to flamers and MGs than LRMs. You just need to think a bit before you go running towards the enemy.

They are also the only indirect fire weapon in the game, easily offsetting the need for a spotter.

As for the rest, lrms don't bother me, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that needs fixing.

[El Bandito]

Ruar, on 29 May 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

They are also the only indirect fire weapon in the game, easily offsetting the need for a spotter.

As for the rest, lrms don't bother me, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that needs fixing.

You are confused. LRMs do need a spotter for IDF. They are not mortars.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 29 May 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

As for the rest, lrms don't bother me, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that needs fixing.

Thankfully what happens to MWO does not hinge on what you think alone.

[Ruar]

El Bandito, on 29 May 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

You are confused. LRMs do need a spotter for IDF. They are not mortars.

Fairly big difference between active and passive spotting. Right now spotting is just hitting the lock button while you do whatever, making it entirely too easy for lrms to home. Having an active system for spotting would solve the issue of lrms being low risk weapons.

At the same time, lrms could be buffed some to be better at indirect fire since there is a bigger locking requirement.

The6thMessenger, on 29 May 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

Thankfully what happens to MWO does not hinge on what you think alone.

Yep, I mean there aren't any threads about lrm issues or anything.

Edited by Ruar, 29 May 2017 - 09:01 PM.

[El Bandito]

Ruar, on 29 May 2017 - 08:52 PM, said:

As for the rest, lrms don't bother me, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem that needs fixing.

The6thMessenger, on 29 May 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

Thankfully what happens to MWO does not hinge on what you think alone.

Now now, current LRMs are problematic in some areas. It is very unfun when used against newbies, which could hurt player retention. They are completely useless in high level plays, which means the weapon will never be used.

There are many ways to make LRMs less unfun against potatoes and less situational overall, and there are tons of good threads about it. PGI just do not care.

Edited by El Bandito, 29 May 2017 - 09:02 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Well... LRMs are just poorly implemented to begin with.

Indirect fire is supposed to be possible with them, but it comes with a huge accuracy penalty, not the reduction from "minute-of-torso" accuracy to "minute-of-'Mech" accuracy that MWO depicts. They should scatter like nobody's business and mostly miss unless fired in huge volume.

Direct fire should be much, much tighter to offset the reduction in indirect fire accuracy, and instead of always homing on the CT they should track on the component under the user's reticle when fired. Only when fired "off-bore" should they default to home on the CT. This introduces an element of skill to effective LRM use.

Missiles should not arc on their own. The player launching them should have to manually aim so that their missiles arc over intervening cover and/or 'Mechs. This means that locks should hold for longer once attained, so the pilot has a chance to do a quick eyeball calculation of the shot geometry. However...

...locks should always break instantly on LOS loss unless a spotter is present. No target decay, no radar deprivation needed to counter it. LOS loss means LOS loss, not the enemy ducking behind a tree or a radio tower that does not hide them from visual detection (which currently breaks sensor contact in defiance of common sense and reason). If the enemy goes behind a large building or a terrain feature that completely conceals their 'Mech, though, you should lose your target lock. End of story. Sensors are not psychic; they do not know what direction a target is going after the emitter and receiver no longer have LOS to the target.

To compensate for the loss of the target decay crutch, LRMs should be fire-and-forget. Once away, they should seek independently.

So, basically, LRMs should function the way they did in MW4, with the sole exception of being capable of indirect fire (at a huge accuracy penalty).

Edited by WrathOfDeadguy, 29 May 2017 - 09:02 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

this has been brought up before, it would break LRMs and very few would take them,
they are already extremely unreliable, as where your effectiveness with them depends mostly on your enemy skill level,

Personally i think targeting needs a rework, to make LRMs more balance, but that may be far off,

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 29 May 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

this has been brought up before, it would break LRMs and very few would take them,
they are already extremely unreliable, as where your effectiveness with them depends mostly on your enemy skill level,

Personally i think targeting needs a rework, to make LRMs more balance, but that may be far off,

Less people taking them is part of the point. I'm not sure why you call them unreliable, they hit just fine if you work as hard at aiming as lasers.

The fact you acknowledge there is a problem with lrms just confirms a change needs to happen sooner rather than later. Switching how they home would be an easy change.

[Wintersdark]

Ruar, on 29 May 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

So what would be the negatives to making it so LRMs only home if there is a NARC or TAG lock?

Postiives-

Fewer LRM boats in QP

Spotting/scouting is needed

NARC becomes desired

Forces LRM boats to get LOS if no spotter, or carry NARC

Negatives-

?



Seems kind of win/win. Rewards teamwork and reduces the issues with LRM boats and LRMs in general.

This is terrible. Do you actually believe this? That there are no negatives?

1) Even now, LRM's are a poor weapon system and objectively inferior to direct fire weaponry.
2) A single multi AMS mech with Overload renders multiple LRM boats ineffective.
3) Radar derp is still a thing, as is ECM. And rocks. LRM's are trivial to counter.

So, given the above - a poor weapon easily countered by active play or passive equipment - you want to make it a WORSE weapon, requiring ANOTHER weapon to use it "effectively" (still less effectively than a direct fire weapon, mind you)?

Methinks you do indeed have trouble getting banked my LRM's. This is a git gud problem, nothing more. Or don't, and take some boosted AMS. Either way.

Edited by Wintersdark, 29 May 2017 - 10:36 PM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

I think people hate LRMs more for the feeling of being hit by them rather than the actual effect. Chained clan LRM5s are essentially like an AC2 macro in terms of how it feels to get shot for the uninitiated.

LRMs are ubiquitous in Battletech and should be effective without having even more hidden mechanics heaped onto them. Part of the problem (and cause of rage) is that there's a huge disadvantage to taking big launchers rather than large numbers of LRM 5s or 10s due to the accuracy penalty... combine that with the amount of screen shake they cause and the upset is predictable.

IMO:

-put a hard throttle on how quickly LRMs can be chain-fired.
-greatly increase the accuracy of LRM 15s and 20s (possibly just remove the differences in accuracy between launchers)
-increase the reload speed of all LRMs- 5/6/7/8s for 5/10/15/20 launchers is a better ballpark
-greatly increase the flight speed of LRMs
-greatly decrease LOS lock on time, increase indirect lock on time
-increase the effectiveness of deprivation
-greatly reduce the amount of screen shake and noise
-ECM only blocks indirect targeting

Right now LRMs are essentially ineffective as direct-fire weapons when they should effectively be a mid to long range budget weapon that's more tonnage efficient than ballistics, at the expense of not being pin-point. Making them far more effective in direct fire, less effective in indirect, and less panic-inducing for tier 4s would be a good change.

Obviously suggesting they require narc or tag is just a barely concealed rage post rather than a real suggestion. Sorry you died OP.

[Karl Streiger]

I have prepared a LRM how to years ago..
Goal was to have LRMs that might stand against PPCs with LOS - (by increasing the value)
and adding more importance to Scouts
maybe forcing better map awareness
Google Slide

Text:
max range 2000m
3 Modes for LRM

• - indirect no Lock - > this is point and click artillery (highly inaccurate - but simple in husage) - fixed speed
  
• - indirect with LOCK acquired by NARC or TAG -> speed depends on range (1000m more speed, 2000m less speed)
  
• - direct - max 1000m more speed two lock types
  
  • Mech lock - missiles spread over the Mech
    
  • Location lock - tight spread missiles hit the location

The lock types also can be made for TAG (component) and NARC (Mech) -


indirect missiles can not be locked by the LRM Mech - he only has a lamp in the cockpit that goes green (maybe a overlay shows targets)
when he has multiple targets in his field of fire the volume is split equally.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 May 2017 - 11:40 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 29 May 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

I think people hate LRMs more for the feeling of being hit by them rather than the actual effect. Chained clan LRM5s are essentially like an AC2 macro in terms of how it feels to get shot for the uninitiated.

People hate LRMs because guided weapons, generally speaking, require less player skill to use than other weapon types. The perception is (and it's usually correct) that a player using seeking weapons can just hold down their mouse button and get kills while a player using direct-fire weapons has to actually lead and time their shots. Guided weapons are downright offensive to many FPS players.

IMO, LRMs have a place, but they need to require some actual brainpower to use. Right now, it's all timing, and you can mitigate even that requirement by carrying a massive amount of ammo and spamming. The result may or may not help your team win, but it will result in impressive damage numbers and (at least with chainfired small launchers) lots of killshots, so it can feel as though you're having an impact even if you're not really contributing because your damage is spread all over the place. That should change. LRMs should be a good focused damage source like other weapons are, with the caveat that they lose almost all of their killing power when used for indirect (ie extremely low-skill) fire. LRMs as suppressive fire is one thing... but it should take a truly stupendous amount of missiles to kill a 'Mech that the LRM-ing player does not have LOS on.

It should not be possible to hard-kill an enemy (at least one who isn't an idiot) with that player never having an opportunity to return fire, which is a scenario that can happen in MWO. There should be tricks LRM-wielders can use to increase their missiles' effectiveness, and at the same time people being targeted by missiles should be able to evade them with hard cover (even if it isn't overhead cover- eliminating psychic target locks solves that problem). Sitting in the back line holding down the fire button and expending absolutely zero effort should not be a thing- not even in T5 matches. To be effective at killing enemies, any 'Mech mounting any weapon type should have to expose their 'Mech to potential return fire. Indirect fire should be for softening targets up or breaking enemy coordination, not for achieving hard kills.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 29 May 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:

People hate LRMs because guided weapons, generally speaking, require less player skill to use than other weapon types. The perception is (and it's usually correct) that a player using seeking weapons can just hold down their mouse button and get kills while a player using direct-fire weapons has to actually lead and time their shots. Guided weapons are downright offensive to many FPS players.

IMO, LRMs have a place, but they need to require some actual brainpower to use. Right now, it's all timing, and you can mitigate even that requirement by carrying a massive amount of ammo and spamming. The result may or may not help your team win, but it will result in impressive damage numbers and (at least with chainfired small launchers) lots of killshots, so it can feel as though you're having an impact even if you're not really contributing because your damage is spread all over the place. That should change. LRMs should be a good focused damage source like other weapons are, with the caveat that they lose almost all of their killing power when used for indirect (ie extremely low-skill) fire. LRMs as suppressive fire is one thing... but it should take a truly stupendous amount of missiles to kill a 'Mech that the LRM-ing player does not have LOS on.

It should not be possible to hard-kill an enemy (at least one who isn't an idiot) with that player never having an opportunity to return fire, which is a scenario that can happen in MWO. There should be tricks LRM-wielders can use to increase their missiles' effectiveness, and at the same time people being targeted by missiles should be able to evade them with hard cover (even if it isn't overhead cover- eliminating psychic target locks solves that problem). Sitting in the back line holding down the fire button and expending absolutely zero effort should not be a thing- not even in T5 matches. To be effective at killing enemies, any 'Mech mounting any weapon type should have to expose their 'Mech to potential return fire. Indirect fire should be for softening targets up or breaking enemy coordination, not for achieving hard kills.

You're vastly overestimating how effective LRMs are at even getting high damage games.. nevermind 100-0 killing someone.

The skill ceiling is horrifically low with LRMs. The matchup needs to be absolutely perfect to actually solo kill someone. Most people dying to them are dying because they put themselves well out of position.

[The6thMessenger]

El Bandito, on 29 May 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

Now now, current LRMs are problematic in some areas. It is very unfun when used against newbies, which could hurt player retention. They are completely useless in high level plays, which means the weapon will never be used.

There are many ways to make LRMs less unfun against potatoes and less situational overall, and there are tons of good threads about it. PGI just do not care.

I guess i'm still feeling that high-and-mighty stuff he has from the other thread. And i'm sorry for that comment.

Nonetheless, i acknowledge that LRMs are problematic. Due to the nature of it flourishing more over terrible pilots, than when used by actual competent pilots.

LRMs ends up as an effective potato eater, with the lurmers lurming happily without doing much work in actually getting a lock -- they could just stand waaay back, and eat you up while you actually do the work. The challenge is to give incentive on lurming on their own locks, instead of heavily piggybacking on allied locks. But making it completely ineffective at indirect fire, makes it a poor indirect-fire support weapon which is a disservice to the intent of the weapon.

Much of the charm is that one can just lurm waaay back happily, spam missiles and get rewards just like that. I would prefer it so that a lock isn't a feeding frenzy with LRM boats just chain-firing rainbows of missiles, people actually have to give thought with each shot. The only idea i could think of is to buff the spread, damage and velocity heavily, and nerf the cooldown heavily.

Giving more significance to a single volley, than making multiple volleys quickly would emphasize it's tactical nature instead. Sustainability is done by multiple smaller launchers partitioning shots so there should be little cooldown differences between larger and smaller launchers.

TAG and NARC being mostly reliant on LRMs, they can't be buffed or nerfed well when it's effectiveness hinges on a broken weapon. I would strongly urge in making these two weapons less reliant on LRMs, make them effective on their own.

Say TAG needs not constant aim, as the TAG effect expires around 0.5 to 1.0s upon each impact, and aside from that Target-Info-Gathering could also be useful.

NARC on the other hand, is a "**** You in Particular" in LRM heavy environment which is just a total death-sentence on some map. But a big "Meh" on other times without LRMs, unless it's done to track some elusive foe, or needs a UAV substitute. I honestly don't know what on Terra should we do to make NARC less reliant on LRMs.

That's just me though.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 May 2017 - 12:10 AM.

[Lorcryst NySell]

First : using LRM is simple, using them well is rather complicated.

People who complain about them often willfully ignore how to play with them, or have never tried them.

Second : when I get sniped from half a map away by DualGaussDualPPC, I can do NOTHING about it, and it's 50 points of focused, pin point damage. And twitch clicking your mouse doesn't take much player skill, either ...

If anything, LRM's need a buff to make them viable in all levels of play.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Lorcryst NySell, on 30 May 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

First : using LRM is simple, using them well is rather complicated.

People who complain about them often willfully ignore how to play with them, or have never tried them.

Second : when I get sniped from half a map away by DualGaussDualPPC, I can do NOTHING about it, and it's 50 points of focused, pin point damage. And twitch clicking your mouse doesn't take much player skill, either ...

If anything, LRM's need a buff to make them viable in all levels of play.

If the LRMs are out in force I just play an ERLL sniper and watch the LRMs detonate 10m in front of my face as I dismantle the shooter..

They're tragically easy to play around.

[Karl Streiger]

Lorcryst NySell, on 30 May 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

If anything, LRM's need a buff to make them viable in all levels of play.

WRONG and TRUE at the same time

LRM need to be buffed for direct fire
LRM need to be nerfed for indirect fire

nerf and buff is bad wording, so its a complete change in game mechanic.... MWLL style maybe.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 30 May 2017 - 12:47 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Karl Streiger, on 30 May 2017 - 12:47 AM, said:

WRONG and TRUE at the same time

LRM need to be buffed for direct fire
LRM need to be nerfed for indirect fire

nerf and buff is bad wording, so its a complete change in game mechanic.... MWLL style maybe.

What would happen if it's an allied lock, then to fire the LRMers should reacquire lock everytime, that means every shot you have to lock once more.

But when you have LOS, then you don't have to acquire lock every shot, you can just lurm continuously.