220 replies to this topic

[Guile Votoms]

Vellron2005, on 31 May 2017 - 03:42 AM, said:

Jeez, dude. Calm down.
Voicing my opinion on a big stompy robot game doesn't make me {Godwin's Law}, ok?

I'm not telling anyone how to play.

What I'm talking about is how the game gives players a wrong impression.

You can deal very high damage on a good match on Polar Highlands in your LRM-only Dire Wolf, sure ...
But more often than not, you'll end up not being helpful to your team because you can't get a proper lock, your team-mates get killed because they're not getting a share of your 100 tonner armor, you can't get in a good spot in time or get taken down by a single Locust because you don't have any backup weapons.

But many players only see how in 1 out of 5 matches they did 1k damage and forget that the other 4 times they died doing less than 100.

It's the same with how the game rewards damage.
You're rewarded for doing really high damage, but that usually means that you're not aiming for critical components.
It's better to kill a mech quickly by taking out a side XL than pumping 500 damage into it's torso and arms.

And my proposition doesn't change anything about what you said about the role of LRMs.
You can still supress your targets and force them into cover.

Your argument about how assault stock loadouts have LRMs in them also falls flat, because I'm talking about LRM-only mechs and not mechs that happen to have an LRM launcher for support alongside their other weapons.

Dago Red, on 31 May 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

I don't get this at all. I mean yeah if half your team is trying to hide behind each other and begging for locks it's a problem but when I'm brawling ( so like 80% of the time) there's nothing I love more than a little rain on whoever I'm locked in with.

But in that case you're holding your own locks, which is great.
I'm exclusively talking about LRM-boats that hide behind their team, waiting for target locks.

Edited by Guile Votoms, 31 May 2017 - 04:49 AM.

[Asym]

Good grief guys,

I'm just a retired old horse soldier and most of you have missed the point: combined arms and teamwork wins: period.

LRM's are a portion of that mix and deserve an equal footing.....

What is really going on is that the brawling community is crying foul since they now have to invest in skills they want for armor, speed and firepower. They can't stand the concept of anything but "Rock-and-Sock'em-Robots" and PGI is headed that way to simplify their micro-sales paradigm..... Come on guys, this is simple economics...... Nerf = buy. Degradfe or change = buy.

I agree that LRM's and ALL WEAPONS systems need to be un-nerf'd and let the better, smarter "team" win......

Just some musing from an old horse soldier....

[Weeny Machine]

The problem is the easy-accessability of the lock mechanic. This is what makes LRMs so annoying and why people are polarized.

Give access to a lock only via narc or tag. Then buff flight speed as much as you want. This would help brawlers who do not have to disengage because a Captain HappyBehindRocksLRMftwLulz decides to press R and a mouse button from 700m+ away with no LoS.

Edited by Bush Hopper, 31 May 2017 - 05:07 AM.

[Dago Red]

Guile Votoms, on 31 May 2017 - 04:40 AM, said:

But in that case you're holding your own locks, which is great.
I'm exclusively talking about LRM-boats that hide behind their team, waiting for target locks.

No I'm talking about being a brawler who appreciates having some indirect fire support and remembers that the R key exists.

[Dago Red]

Asym, on 31 May 2017 - 04:47 AM, said:

Good grief guys,

I'm just a retired old horse soldier and most of you have missed the point: combined arms and teamwork wins: period.

LRM's are a portion of that mix and deserve an equal footing.....

What is really going on is that the brawling community is crying foul since they now have to invest in skills they want for armor, speed and firepower. They can't stand the concept of anything but "Rock-and-Sock'em-Robots" and PGI is headed that way to simplify their micro-sales paradigm..... Come on guys, this is simple economics...... Nerf = buy. Degradfe or change = buy.

I agree that LRM's and ALL WEAPONS systems need to be un-nerf'd and let the better, smarter "team" win......

Just some musing from an old horse soldier....

I'm gonna cry foul on this. Even without investing for derp the only time I've been actually threatened by lurms since the change is when A: the enemy had a couple of good narc user's or B: I was driving something dirt slow an got caught on unavoidable open ground.

And derp wouldn't have saved me from either. If you could pilot to avoid them for you should be able to now as well. That and I've managed to free up a ton and a half for an ams, ammo for it, and bought the overload skills on everything I own over 50 tons. It's been doing wonders

Edited by Dago Red, 31 May 2017 - 05:16 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Overall some good ideas. I like to "nerf" the indirect fire spam efficiency and have more skill involved in aiming LRMs for best effect.

Making it harder to hit with high damage is one way to increase battle time (and TTK).
Thats why I suggested in my Signature to "nerf" most weapons to have more cooldown and stream/burst/beam durations.

Thinking of LRMs specifically, I quote myself from my original suggestion (see Sig) balance-changes-including-3060-weapons Page3-Post60
I've increased velocity, but also increased stream and cooldown.
The result should be that LRMs are easier to reach the target, but harder to concentrate fire and have lower dps.

Additionally: Direct fire lock change for 5 locations (see video) would make the SKILL part for direct fire much more interesting and challenging than simply targeting the red blob.

Missiles:
- longer cooldown for all missiles
- Stream-fire every missile
- Missile velocity increased for LRM/MRM + can skill velocity and volley duration
- Streak/LRM lock mechanic changed to aquire 5 target components (e.g. 2x LT, 1x CT, 1x RT, 1x RL) for each 5 missiles.


Missile stats:
IS LRM 0.3s volley duration per 5 missiles
Clan LRM 0.75s volley duration per 5 missiles
MRM 0.25s volley duration per 5 missiles
ATM 0.2s volley duration per 3 missiles
SRM/SSRM 0.15s volley duration per 2 missiles

Spoiler

LRM5 5.5s cd
LRM10 6s cd
LRM15 6.5s cd
LRM20 7s cd

cLRM5 7s cd
cLRM10 7.5s cd
cLRM15 8s cd
cLRM20 8.5s cd

MRM10 5s cd
MRM20 6s cd
MRM30 7s cd
MRM40 8s cd

ATM3 4s cd
ATM6 5s cd
ATM9 6s cd
ATM12 7s cd

SRM2 4s cd
SRM4 5s cd
SRM6 6s cd

sSRM2 5s cd
sSRM4 6s cd
sSRM6 7s cd

[Andi Nagasia]

ok ive updated the Topic,
because many have Expressed a want for Team NARC + TAG to be better,
(as it should be giving the Player has to expose them selves to get the Bonuses)
i have changes some of the stats(and so reworked some of the Values),

Base LOS bonus has been reduced to -35%(Down from -40%)
TAG bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
Artemis bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
the Max Spread Bonus you can receive is still -80%,

this change allows for NARC + TAG, Team Indirect Fire,
to have the same Bonuses as LOS + Artemis + TAG, Direct Fire,

Thoughts?

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

Thoughts?

Any weapon that requires two separate mechs to use effectively better be overwhelmingly powerful or no one in their right mind would use it.
That TAG or NARC needs to make up for both the laser or SRM/MRM you didn't take instead, and the time wasted by LRM carrier waiting for the spotter to do it's job.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 31 May 2017 - 06:08 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

ok ive updated the Topic,
because many have Expressed a want for Team NARC + TAG to be better,
(as it should be giving the Player has to expose them selves to get the Bonuses)
i have changes some of the stats(and so reworked some of the Values),

Base LOS bonus has been reduced to -35%(Down from -40%)
TAG bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
Artemis bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
the Max Spread Bonus you can receive is still -80%,

this change allows for NARC + TAG, Team Indirect Fire,
to have the same Bonuses as LOS + Artemis + TAG, Direct Fire,

Thoughts?

I'm still voting no because you are nerfing the indirect part of LRMs and turning them into a direct fire weapon to compete with gauss, SRMs, MRMs, and ATMs. I'd vote yes if you turned them into better indirect weapons and not that great direct fire weapons. As Savage said, if it requires two mechs to make the damage worthwhile then you need to buff it majorly or it will not be used.

You know my counter and you still haven't replied to it. In fact, you've gone out of your way to ignore it.

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 31 May 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

Any weapon that requires two separate mechs to use effectively better be overwhelmingly powerful or no one in their right mind would use it.

yes, thats actually what this change seeks to do make TAG + NARC just as Good as LOS + Artemis + TAG,
which i feel would help TAG Teams(No Pun Intended) of Scout(TAG/NARC) & Support(LRM) Mechs better,

Savage Wolf, on 31 May 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

That TAG or NARC needs to make up for both the laser or SRM/MRM you didn't take instead, and the time wasted by LRM carrier waiting for the spotter to do it's job.

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 06:13 AM, said:

I'm still voting no because you are nerfing the indirect part of LRMs and turning them into a direct fire weapon to compete with gauss, SRMs, MRMs, and ATMs. I'd vote yes if you turned them into better indirect weapons and not that great direct fire weapons. As Savage said, if it requires two mechs to make the damage worthwhile then you need to buff it majorly or it will not be used.

and i have, more so as the LRM Mech and Spoting Light would be much Safer than a LRM mech Direct Firing,
as the Direct Firing LRM mech has to Stair to Hold Lock as well as with the TAG, making them very vulnerable,
where as the Light can NARC the enemy mech, then just wait for them Missiles to get close before TAGing,

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

ok ive updated the Topic,
because many have Expressed a want for Team NARC + TAG to be better,
(as it should be giving the Player has to expose them selves to get the Bonuses)
i have changes some of the stats(and so reworked some of the Values),

Base LOS bonus has been reduced to -35%(Down from -40%)
TAG bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
Artemis bonus has been increased to -30%(Up from -25%)
the Max Spread Bonus you can receive is still -80%,

this change allows for NARC + TAG, Team Indirect Fire,
to have the same Bonuses as LOS + Artemis + TAG, Direct Fire,

Thoughts?

So LRM's would need 1-2 additional mechs to work properly...? That just reminds me of this.

[sycocys]

Still think that going with the -spread rather than -travel time/arc is a bad plan.

And the one guy said it right, so long as there are "indirect" locks shared by anyone gaining target info is what overall makes them a bad weapon system. It's also what make ecm/derp/bap poorly implemented.

[Ruar]

I think there is just no real way to make LRMs a strong indirect fire weapon and still have them be useful the majority of the time. If LRMs were able to shine in the indirect role then people would change their playstyle and map selection to avoid situations where indirect fire is a threat.

If LRMs could routinely do 500-600 damage against mechs behind cover then LRMs would be on almost every mech. There would be no downside to using them since they provide so much power while keeping the user behind cover.

Having a homing system on an indirect fire weapon is a very bad way to implement that mechanic. As someone pointed out if you require another person to use NARC/TAG then the return has to be worth two mechs time, not just one. Such a plan would change the entire way the game is played as people desperately avoid NARC locks, put as much ECM on the board to defeat NARC, and sit in positions where LRMs can't reach.

There's really no place in MWO for a strong indirect weapon. It's not needed because the matches are fluid with constant movement. There are no true bottlenecks or chokepoints that can't be avoided or jumped around. The maps are designed with multiple movement corridors.

Sure, there is a spot in the game for some indirect capability. Having a decent AE ability for teamplay to help shape movement would be something worth having. However, in QP having some ability for indirect fire in a few situations is all that's needed.

Which means LRMs should really be focused on a direct fire, long range role while having some ability to be used in an indirect role. Having LRMs be an area weapon in both direct and indirect mode would give them a unique role in the game and make them worth using. However, they would be a support weapon instead of a primary option. Kind of like how they were designed in the TT to begin with but got changed in MWO due to FPS and homing mechanics.

Edited by Ruar, 31 May 2017 - 06:37 AM.

[Steve Pryde]

Just allow indirect fire only with TAG or NARC on the target (yes that means u would need a spotter) but increase the velocity drastically with LOS and make them fire&forget+flatten the flight path. And change it skill wise? Make it harder to get a lock, that's it.

I loved LRMs in previously MW games because the mechanic were different (and better). I really hate how lurms in MWO works because it isn't even fun to use them.

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 10:54 PM, said:

A tier 1 player afraid of LRM's...? Okay... In case you missed it: "If they nerfed LRM range to its TT levels, then they would have to do it for EVERY weapon (make their current optimal ranges their new max ranges) and nobody wants that." Are you saying you want the current ranges for ALL weapon systems to become their new max ranges?

Afraid? He made a suggestion to buff the velocity 4 times and u think that's a nerf? Wow, just wow.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 31 May 2017 - 06:55 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

So LRM's would need 1-2 additional mechs to work properly...? That just reminds me of this.

well um ya, thats how LRMs work, technically you cant indirect Fire with out having another mech helping,

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

Still think that going with the -spread rather than -travel time/arc is a bad plan.

personally i like the Arc, the way i play LRMs i fire them over my Team mates at the Front,
always staying with in 300m of the front lines helps me mobilize and keeps me safe if i get targeted,
also the +50% Velocity i feel would help LRMs more then much of the Spread Tweaking,

[Weeny Machine]

Savage Wolf, on 31 May 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

Any weapon that requires two separate mechs to use effectively better be overwhelmingly powerful or no one in their right mind would use it.
That TAG or NARC needs to make up for both the laser or SRM/MRM you didn't take instead, and the time wasted by LRM carrier waiting for the spotter to do it's job.

Sure. Team play should be rewarded. I see it the same way. After all it should compensate not being able to switch targets too easily

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

well um ya, thats how LRMs work, technically you cant indirect Fire with out having another mech helping,

Wrong. The fact that you think this tells me that you are not a LRM pilot. I can do indirect-fire without another mech spotting for me. They are called UAV's. Furthermore, how many times do I have to say it? LRM's ARE NOT META! They are not meta now, never were before, and never will be. So why try so hard to nerf it and push people to other weapons instead? Bad enough you nerfed it once already and now you want round two? I thought PPC/Gauss and IS laser vomit were the kings of meta and in six weeks we will be getting the Civil War update with dozens of new weapons. So why the push now to nerf a weapon some see as the court jester?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 31 May 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[Asym]

Here's a thought for you to ponder and something I have been consulting on and teaching for decades:

"Operational complexity, as it increases in dimensions of use, compells an equilivent de-evolution in control processes and changes to the command matricies from management paradigms to Leadership structures to facilitate efficient processes and outcomes." Warfare uses the same algorithm and has done so for centuries.

Warfare is 3 dimensional; or, 4 if you consider the rules of engagement. You can't keep trying to "fix" the realities of the weapons that operate in all of the dimensions and not equilivently change the basics of game play. In this case, after Civil War, we'll be approaching a game that only fights in 2 dimensions and no one will take that game seriously......

Food for thought.

[Asym]

Jep,

Because they gear what they can not see.... All throughout history, Artillery has been the "king of battle".... Why? Because it is and can be decisive.

I am a LRM pilot. I don't need a spotter. I don't sit in the back. I answer calls for help. I accidently hit my team mates in the back of the head and they don't get mad. When they die, I die.

And, PGI has nerf'd the crap out of my "line of work" in an attempt to cater to a sizable portion of the community. Imagine the CW 100 giants who can move at 45 MPH and will have to work within a fluid battlefield...... Right, that doesn't sell those mechs. What sells those and othjer Assaults is just about impossible to destroy metrics that lasts 15 minutes..... That dumbs down the game play and forces buyers to buy-up or die....

Just my thoughts.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

and i have, more so as the LRM Mech and Spoting Light would be much Safer than a LRM mech Direct Firing,
as the Direct Firing LRM mech has to Stair to Hold Lock as well as with the TAG, making them very vulnerable,
where as the Light can NARC the enemy mech, then just wait for them Missiles to get close before TAGing,

No, you've avoided it and you kept moving goal posts like you just did here.

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

Here's an option for them. At close range they suffer penalties on to hit as per the write up on them, but to compensate they should get bonuses for every 100 meters past 180 meter minimum range. They also should increase in speed from the time they are fired till the time they hit in order to keep them in line with ballistics. They get a buff to indirect fire and a nerf to direct fire because they are launched at a 90 degree angle. This way you differentiate LRMs from ATM, MRM, SRM, and SSRM. Out of all the missile types in BT, the LRM is the only indirect fire one.

I would increase their speed up to 277 meters per second once they achieve 100-200 meter altitude and come down. The only way to buff direct fire is with the use of TAG/Narc/Artemis.

Direct Fire Mode: LRM spread is larger then indirect fire mode and can't go around intervening terrain.

Indirect fire: Ignores intervening terrain, except for caves and other rock formations that cover the top of the enemy mech. Spread is tighter due to the missiles' guidance system being able to compensate for them.

Locks are not mandatory for indirect fire mode since these are guided munitions, but they are needed for direct fire mode.

Now care to answer this counter proposal that brings LRMs to parity with direct fire weapons without moving the goal posts or splitting hairs over what is and isn't direct fire mode that contradicts BT and real world definitions?