220 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 08 June 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

Not everyone agrees with your assessment (obviously). So I suggest focusing your efforts elsewhere.

true not everyone agrees with me, and thats ok, but with around 80% Approval, i can assume im on the right track,
but that goes to question, if 80% approval isnt enough, and i should focus else where,
what percent would be enough to continue to work on this concept?

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 08 June 2017 - 05:11 PM.

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 08 June 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

true not everyone agrees with me, and thats ok, but with around 80% Approval, i can assume im on the right track,
but that goes to question, if 80% approval isnt enough, and i should focus else where,
what percent would be enough to continue to work on this concept?

I think you are on the right track. LRMs are low hanging fruit when it comes to coding and investment of time. Changing the targeting system to make how mechs are locked, observed, and information shared is a much more complex issue that will probably never be changed. However adjusting some stats on LRMs is relatively easy.

And of course not everyone is going to agree. LRMs are a very easy weapon to use and a skilled player can get a good return with very little investment. Why would someone willingly say "yeah, go ahead and make this weapon require more skill to use because it's just too easy"? Instead people want to hang on to the easy button and create all kinds of reasons/excuses as to why it should be left alone.

That doesn't change the fact that LRMs are just not working properly right now and effect the player base disproportionately than any other weapon. I could make a case that LRMs have driven away more new players than any other aspect of the game over the years. The pure frustration and not-fun of getting pummeled from people out of sight and untouchable is probably the single most influencing factor in FPS games. For some people such an event motivates them to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, for other people they move to a game where it doesn't happen.

LRMs really should be direct fire weapons first with a small ability to do some indirect fire. The fact PGI decided to use a homing system has forced LRMs to have a lot of counters as well as limiting their potential because homing on indirect targets is incredibly powerful and oppressive. At the same time if there is no way to get a lock, or hold a lock, then LRMs are almost useless with little value.

The way to avoid these extremes is make LRMs have the same role as the TT but without the homing aspect. Good at direct fire damage at long range. Capable of some indirect fire when the situation presents itself. This discourages people from sitting back out of LOS and raining fire down on newer players. It encourages people to use mixed builds by throwing an LRM10 in that one missile slot because direct fire wouldn't require holding a lock. It also encourages people to stop boating LRMs because they will be a support weapon instead of a primary weapon except on dedicated chassis with buffs to LRMs themselves.

It's pretty much win/win/win and the only people who don't like it are the ones who insist that LRMs must remain the easy button because "I like to just relax and chill sometimes and LRMs let me do that".

[Dago Red]

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

I think you are on the right track. LRMs are low hanging fruit when it comes to coding and investment of time. Changing the targeting system to make how mechs are locked, observed, and information shared is a much more complex issue that will probably never be changed. However adjusting some stats on LRMs is relatively easy.

And of course not everyone is going to agree. LRMs are a very easy weapon to use and a skilled player can get a good return with very little investment. Why would someone willingly say "yeah, go ahead and make this weapon require more skill to use because it's just too easy"? Instead people want to hang on to the easy button and create all kinds of reasons/excuses as to why it should be left alone.

That doesn't change the fact that LRMs are just not working properly right now and effect the player base disproportionately than any other weapon. I could make a case that LRMs have driven away more new players than any other aspect of the game over the years. The pure frustration and not-fun of getting pummeled from people out of sight and untouchable is probably the single most influencing factor in FPS games. For some people such an event motivates them to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, for other people they move to a game where it doesn't happen.

LRMs really should be direct fire weapons first with a small ability to do some indirect fire. The fact PGI decided to use a homing system has forced LRMs to have a lot of counters as well as limiting their potential because homing on indirect targets is incredibly powerful and oppressive. At the same time if there is no way to get a lock, or hold a lock, then LRMs are almost useless with little value.

The way to avoid these extremes is make LRMs have the same role as the TT but without the homing aspect. Good at direct fire damage at long range. Capable of some indirect fire when the situation presents itself. This discourages people from sitting back out of LOS and raining fire down on newer players. It encourages people to use mixed builds by throwing an LRM10 in that one missile slot because direct fire wouldn't require holding a lock. It also encourages people to stop boating LRMs because they will be a support weapon instead of a primary weapon except on dedicated chassis with buffs to LRMs themselves.

It's pretty much win/win/win and the only people who don't like it are the ones who insist that LRMs must remain the easy button because "I like to just relax and chill sometimes and LRMs let me do that".

If they can't deal with the most ineffective weapons system in the game without freaking out and leaving then when they get zapped by coordinated gaus and PPC fire from outside a range where they can fo anything other than give mean looks in return they're going to have an aneurysm.

I'm all for buffing direct fire to at least parity with er larges but indirect is already bad enough. Do you so love kicking them while they're down?

[Savage Wolf]

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

And of course not everyone is going to agree. LRMs are a very easy weapon to use and a skilled player can get a good return with very little investment. Why would someone willingly say "yeah, go ahead and make this weapon require more skill to use because it's just too easy"? Instead people want to hang on to the easy button and create all kinds of reasons/excuses as to why it should be left alone.

The ease of use of a weapon does not in any way or form justify nerfs. Otherwise I think lasers should get the biggest of nerfs seeing it as it's the easiest weapon to pickup and use. If possible, all weapons should be easy to use. Good controls are essential.
And considering the amount of potatoes I've spectated not getting basics like minimum range and holding locks, it appears it is in fact not easy to use. Meanwhile I've never seen anyone not getting how to use lasers.

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

That doesn't change the fact that LRMs are just not working properly right now and effect the player base disproportionately than any other weapon. I could make a case that LRMs have driven away more new players than any other aspect of the game over the years. The pure frustration and not-fun of getting pummeled from people out of sight and untouchable is probably the single most influencing factor in FPS games. For some people such an event motivates them to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, for other people they move to a game where it doesn't happen.

I presume you have some justification for this bold claim other than that's how you feel so you presume most people feel the same way?

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

LRMs really should be direct fire weapons first with a small ability to do some indirect fire. The fact PGI decided to use a homing system has forced LRMs to have a lot of counters as well as limiting their potential because homing on indirect targets is incredibly powerful and oppressive. At the same time if there is no way to get a lock, or hold a lock, then LRMs are almost useless with little value.

Actually, those are all from lore, not as a response to LRMs. Cover, AMS and ECM already exists in lore. Also, did you just call a spread damage weapon powerful? Opressive? Yes. That's kind of the point of indirect weapons. That's their function.

And this mechanic is why the aggressive LRM'er works. If you are on the front line, then there are always someone to get locks on.

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

The way to avoid these extremes is make LRMs have the same role as the TT but without the homing aspect. Good at direct fire damage at long range. Capable of some indirect fire when the situation presents itself. This discourages people from sitting back out of LOS and raining fire down on newer players. It encourages people to use mixed builds by throwing an LRM10 in that one missile slot because direct fire wouldn't require holding a lock. It also encourages people to stop boating LRMs because they will be a support weapon instead of a primary weapon except on dedicated chassis with buffs to LRMs themselves.

The only way it solves these problems is by making the weapon a bad ER-PPC or bad MRMs. It would encourage everyone to strip the weapon from their mechs. LRMs already is a support weapon and you want it not to be. Why would I have LRMs when MRMs are better at direct fire.

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

It's pretty much win/win/win and the only people who don't like it are the ones who insist that LRMs must remain the easy button because "I like to just relax and chill sometimes and LRMs let me do that".

Really, isn't it really your goal to have an easier time yourself? To be able to never worry about indirect fire ever again? To lessen your need for map awareness and tactics. Just pew pew things I can see.
Also, lets not forget you are the person believing this...

Ruar, on 04 June 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Direct fire is just providing your own lock and is no more reliable than someone else providing the lock in indirect mode. Both direct and indirect have the same level of accuracy in MWO thanks to the homing mechanic.

'nuff said.

[Acehilator]

Useless changes are useless.

Travel time would still be far too long for LRMs to see use in comp play and high level group/FW play.

Changes to indirect fire aren't well thought out (big launchers not nerfed much, spotter help OP), changes to direct fire would make them gamebreaking OP in solo queue, even without a spotter.

Also, same spread for all launcher sizes is a giant no-go.

[Savage Wolf]

Acehilator, on 09 June 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

Changes to indirect fire aren't well thought out (big launchers not nerfed much, spotter help OP), changes to direct fire would make them gamebreaking OP in solo queue, even without a spotter.

Even with the buffs, in direct fire, they are still just slow firing, hot LB-X autocannons. Not OP, but useless in comparison.

[Weeny Machine]

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

I think you are on the right track. LRMs are low hanging fruit when it comes to coding and investment of time. Changing the targeting system to make how mechs are locked, observed, and information shared is a much more complex issue that will probably never be changed. However adjusting some stats on LRMs is relatively easy. And of course not everyone is going to agree. LRMs are a very easy weapon to use and a skilled player can get a good return with very little investment. Why would someone willingly say "yeah, go ahead and make this weapon require more skill to use because it's just too easy"? Instead people want to hang on to the easy button and create all kinds of reasons/excuses as to why it should be left alone. That doesn't change the fact that LRMs are just not working properly right now and effect the player base disproportionately than any other weapon. I could make a case that LRMs have driven away more new players than any other aspect of the game over the years. The pure frustration and not-fun of getting pummeled from people out of sight and untouchable is probably the single most influencing factor in FPS games. For some people such an event motivates them to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, for other people they move to a game where it doesn't happen. LRMs really should be direct fire weapons first with a small ability to do some indirect fire. The fact PGI decided to use a homing system has forced LRMs to have a lot of counters as well as limiting their potential because homing on indirect targets is incredibly powerful and oppressive. At the same time if there is no way to get a lock, or hold a lock, then LRMs are almost useless with little value. The way to avoid these extremes is make LRMs have the same role as the TT but without the homing aspect. Good at direct fire damage at long range. Capable of some indirect fire when the situation presents itself. This discourages people from sitting back out of LOS and raining fire down on newer players. It encourages people to use mixed builds by throwing an LRM10 in that one missile slot because direct fire wouldn't require holding a lock. It also encourages people to stop boating LRMs because they will be a support weapon instead of a primary weapon except on dedicated chassis with buffs to LRMs themselves. It's pretty much win/win/win and the only people who don't like it are the ones who insist that LRMs must remain the easy button because "I like to just relax and chill sometimes and LRMs let me do that".

You also forget that LRMs are very rewarding CB-wise. When I am short on CBs I take out my Trebuchet and ca-tching. I often get 700-1000 dmg which translates in a lot of money. Too bad that I cannot bring myself to play that mech more often. It is so dull for me

Edited by Bush Hopper, 09 June 2017 - 05:10 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Bush Hopper, on 09 June 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

You also forget that LRMs are so rewarding. When I am short on CBs I take out my Trebuchet. I often get 700-1000 dmg which translated in a lot of money. Too bad that I cannot bring myself to play that mech more often. It is so dull for me

That's more of a problem with match rewards. LRMs can stack up a lot of damage, but it's ineffective compared to the number which means you are rewarded too much. But that will always be the problem with a reward system that thinks it can measure your performance in any meaningful way other than simply win or lose.
So not really a problem with LRMs, it's a problem with match score and rewards.

[Weeny Machine]

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

That's more of a problem with match rewards. LRMs can stack up a lot of damage, but it's ineffective compared to the number which means you are rewarded too much. But that will always be the problem with a reward system that thinks it can measure your performance in any meaningful way other than simply win or lose.
So not really a problem with LRMs, it's a problem with match score and rewards.

I am just pointing out that it is (especially for beginners) also an incentive to take LRMs

[Savage Wolf]

Bush Hopper, on 09 June 2017 - 05:11 AM, said:

I am just pointing out that it is (especially for beginners) also an incentive to take LRMs

True.
Just like it discourages both new and old players to play the objectives and encourages to instead play skirmish.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 08 June 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

true not everyone agrees with me, and thats ok, but with around 80% Approval, i can assume im on the right track,
but that goes to question, if 80% approval isnt enough, and i should focus else where,
what percent would be enough to continue to work on this concept?

LRM haters are very vocal and will take any opportunity they can get to nerf LRM's since concepts like indirect-fire, ECM, AMS, radar dep, cover and concealment are all too difficult for them to grasp and makes their heads hurt. You could probably get just as many people to support nerfing LRM's to their TT range. Would that also mean that you would be on the "right track"?

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 09 June 2017 - 07:57 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 09 June 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

LRM haters are very vocal and will take any opportunity they can get to nerf LRM's since concepts like indirect-fire, ECM, AMS, radar dep, cover and concealment are all too difficult for them to grasp and makes their heads hurt. You could probably get just as many people to support nerfing LRM's to their TT range. Would that also mean that you would be on the "right track"?

if we are looking to make the most amount of people happy, then yes, even if they dont agree with us,
even if we think something is good/bad, its up to the majority to vote to say if they think it is or isnt,
you have to ask, do you want the game better for just you? or better for the Majority of players?

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

if we are looking to make the most amount of people happy, then yes, even if they dont agree with us,
even if we think something is good/bad, its up to the majority to vote to say if they think it is or isnt,
you have to ask, do you want the game better for just you? or better for the Majority of players?

First, none of us knows what the majority wants, especially not just from the forums. PGI made that error once when they based a decision on whether game modes should be random on a forum poll where a majority votes for. Once they implemented it they learned that the majority of players not on the forums was against which then totally changed the result.

Secondly, you also need to take into account potential new players. For instance we cannot from the current play determine if players want objective play since the game has none and so such players aren't here. But if it was introduced, it might increase the number of players.

So what you proposed as a simple question is more complex and requires more data than we have available.

[Andi Nagasia]

Acehilator, on 09 June 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

Useless changes are useless.

thank god my changes arnt useless then,

Acehilator, on 09 June 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

Travel time would still be far too long for LRMs to see use in comp play and high level group/FW play.

perhaps but moving 50% faster means your missiles will land 50% faster(cutting travel time by 1/3)

Acehilator, on 09 June 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

Changes to indirect fire aren't well thought out (big launchers not nerfed much, spotter help OP), changes to direct fire would make them gamebreaking OP in solo queue, even without a spotter.

actually they were,
big launchers not nerfed much? they need to be helped as smaller launchers are faster firing with less spread,
Spotter op? so you dont think having someone NARC/TAG & expose them self for the team shouldnt be rewarded?
Direct fire OP? because a 12Ton LRM20+A+TAG(@1.2m Spread) which you need 100% LOS and Lock(Staring)
shouldnt be equivalent to a 14Ton LBX20(@1.0m Spread)(assuming C-LBX20 Spread, and TT Tonnage)

Acehilator, on 09 June 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

Also, same spread for all launcher sizes is a giant no-go.

why, because it discourages people from boating smaller Launchers?
just think if all LRM Launchers had the same Spread larger launchers only having longer Cooldowns,
the only different between 4XLRM5 vs 1LRM20 would be 3Missile hard points, which i can live with,
this would give larger launchers use, wail also keeping Cooldown to smaller Launchers

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

First, none of us knows what the majority wants, especially not just from the forums. PGI made that error once when they based a decision on whether game modes should be random on a forum poll where a majority votes for. Once they implemented it they learned that the majority of players not on the forums was against which then totally changed the result.

true, but it at least gives me a measure of how the majority may see it,
i can assume the Spread of Ideas on these Forums would be in equal parts the same to the spread ingame,
the difference being sample size, but i dont have the Data on Stats, thats a PGI MWO Review & Analysis thing,
we cant just assume that although players in the forums like the idea, players in game will hate it, with no proof,

this is why i have Polls attached to many of my Topics, i have a need to know how people feel about my idea,
i need to know how my views are to the majority, so i can better work on system that the majority may like,
if i have a bad idea then the votes will show it, if its a good idea the votes will show it,

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

Secondly, you also need to take into account potential new players. For instance we cannot from the current play determine if players want objective play since the game has none and so such players aren't here. But if it was introduced, it might increase the number of players.

LRMs at their Core are an extremely complex team Weapon and Mechanic in BattleTech,
that sadly here has been relegated to very much a Noob(new player, not yet experienced player) weapon,
a weapon thats Easy for Noobs to use, for the perpose to easily Kill other Noobs,

i would like to see LRMs return to being an asset to a Team,
to be useful in compeditive play, LRMs are inhanced most by the Team, yet they are subpar,
so much so no Comp team will take them as they are seen as more of a liability in team play,

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

So what you proposed as a simple question is more complex and requires more data than we have available.

Agree, it is more complex, and i do need more data, i never said it was a perfect idea,
and im happy we can have these discussions, as such i keep changing the stats for the better,
but i still think this is the right direction for LRMs to take,

[Jiang Wei]

Hmm... my lrms have no trouble killing experienced players either. There is this feigned notion that lrms cannot be used skillfully on other skilled players. Some competitive teams have threatened to ban people from their team if they are caught using lrms. But that may just be from hating lrms, not because of their viability in competitive games. I am not an lrm player but I do have mechs that carry lrms and I find them incredibly effective, on anyone.

You can however have too many lrms on your team though. I think 1 LRM dedicated mech on a team is enough. When you get 2 or 3 you are just asking to get rushed and rolled over. Or you could have a lore freindly team where several mechs are carrying a single launcher. That is just wishful thinking on my part..

Edited by Jiang Wei, 09 June 2017 - 09:03 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

why, because it discourages people from boating smaller Launchers?
just think if all LRM Launchers had the same Spread larger launchers only having longer Cooldowns,
the only different between 4XLRM5 vs 1LRM20 would be 3Missile hard points, which i can live with,
this would give larger launchers use, wail also keeping Cooldown to smaller Launchers

Larger launchers don't have use? The only launcher I rarely see are LRM10s. All the others are seen often. With your change, why would I ever use anything less than LRM20s?

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

true, but it at least gives me a measure of how the majority may see it,
i can assume the Spread of Ideas on these Forums would be in equal parts the same to the spread ingame,
the difference being sample size, but i dont have the Data on Stats, thats a PGI MWO Review & Analysis thing,
we cant just assume that although players in the forums like the idea, players in game will hate it, with no proof,

this is why i have Polls attached to many of my Topics, i have a need to know how people feel about my idea,
i need to know how my views are to the majority, so i can better work on system that the majority may like,
if i have a bad idea then the votes will show it, if its a good idea the votes will show it,

Trying to measure your ideas is not a bad idea, but you must understand under what conditions that data is collected.

As explained before there is a big difference between the opinions of the average player and the average forum warrior as PGI experienced with their poll. So at best you can measure the opinions of the forum, not the game. And even then, it's not just average forum goers that vote on polls, escpecially not a topic like this where there are vocal people for and against the topic. Your title is very telling of what to expect and so most people would just carry on and not vote. Only the ones that agree would vote and those vocally against.
So take forum polls with a huge grain of salt. If you asked the forums the skill tree is terrible, but more often I hear cheer ingame.

You can more easily measure interest in a subject to which the post about future mechs win flat out against any suggestion thread. So my guess is that the majority of players don't actually care that much either way.

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

LRMs at their Core are an extremely complex team Weapon and Mechanic in BattleTech,
that sadly here has been relegated to very much a Noob(new player, not yet experienced player) weapon,
a weapon thats Easy for Noobs to use, for the perpose to easily Kill other Noobs,

i would like to see LRMs return to being an asset to a Team,
to be useful in compeditive play, LRMs are inhanced most by the Team, yet they are subpar,
so much so no Comp team will take them as they are seen as more of a liability in team play,

I am no pro player, that is true. I am not tier 1 (yet), but we used to hear that LRMs were only effective in tier 4 & 5. Mine works well in Tier 2.
But I also play them differently. I play them aggresively which is not easy, but it's more effective than sitting in the back with a LRM stalker. So why does the noobs not play it aggresively? Because it's not easy and because people tell them to stop. Yes, LRMs are easy to get started with, but hard to master because it's an entirely different playstyle. Noob LRMs are enchanced by the team, carried even. The aggresive LRM'er enhances the team by giving it more options on the front line.

But is it used in competetive play?`No. Not yet. But LRMs have only just reemerged as okay'ish weapons again because they got more reliable to use indirectly. But it only took a little change to make them resurface. I think it needs only a little more to be truly competetive.

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

Agree, it is more complex, and i do need more data, i never said it was a perfect idea,
and im happy we can have these discussions, as such i keep changing the stats for the better,
but i still think this is the right direction for LRMs to take,

I too am happy to have the discussions when they are based on logic and arguments and people are prepared to listen as well as speak up. We still very much disagree about the direction to take this weapon, but maybe we can still learn from eachother.

[Ruar]

So... Andi... did you happen to read my last reply?

[Andi Nagasia]

i was looking at it,

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

I think you are on the right track. LRMs are low hanging fruit when it comes to coding and investment of time. Changing the targeting system to make how mechs are locked, observed, and information shared is a much more complex issue that will probably never be changed. However adjusting some stats on LRMs is relatively easy.

agreed, which is why right now im just working with numbers,
as a Full rework isnt likely, but then again a rework may come by at some point,
im waiting to see how they handle the Energy rebalance, as ive heard we may get a Pulse Rework,
so im holding off to see how that all goes first,

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

And of course not everyone is going to agree. LRMs are a very easy weapon to use and a skilled player can get a good return with very little investment. Why would someone willingly say "yeah, go ahead and make this weapon require more skill to use because it's just too easy"? Instead people want to hang on to the easy button and create all kinds of reasons/excuses as to why it should be left alone.

true, but its not fully one way or the other,
i dont see them as a skill less weapons, nether do i see them as a high skill weapon
its odd as LRMs utility is based more on what your target does then what you do,
(any target you see, you aim and click, most of the time they get hit and twist)
(but for LRMs, you fire, and based on your Targets skill at Dodging LRMs)

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

That doesn't change the fact that LRMs are just not working properly right now and effect the player base disproportionately than any other weapon. I could make a case that LRMs have driven away more new players than any other aspect of the game over the years. The pure frustration and not-fun of getting pummeled from people out of sight and untouchable is probably the single most influencing factor in FPS games. For some people such an event motivates them to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, for other people they move to a game where it doesn't happen.

true, and many people have frustration with LRMs,
which is why im seeking to weaken Extreme Range unassisted, indirect fire LRMs,
which naturally happens way too often in T4-5 as a friend plays threw on her account,
but as you go up in Teir LRMs become less and less viable as everyone knows how to counter then,
this leads to many using LRMs in lower Tier play, and much much less in higher Tier play,

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

LRMs really should be direct fire weapons first with a small ability to do some indirect fire. The fact PGI decided to use a homing system has forced LRMs to have a lot of counters as well as limiting their potential because homing on indirect targets is incredibly powerful and oppressive. At the same time if there is no way to get a lock, or hold a lock, then LRMs are almost useless with little value.

agreed, the homing is a problem and a benefit, but it allows PGI to control the Spread,
and the Lock is a big problem for LRMs, so much for LRMs again is based more on your Opposition they you,

Ruar, on 08 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

The way to avoid these extremes is make LRMs have the same role as the TT but without the homing aspect. Good at direct fire damage at long range. Capable of some indirect fire when the situation presents itself. This discourages people from sitting back out of LOS and raining fire down on newer players. It encourages people to use mixed builds by throwing an LRM10 in that one missile slot because direct fire wouldn't require holding a lock. It also encourages people to stop boating LRMs because they will be a support weapon instead of a primary weapon except on dedicated chassis with buffs to LRMs themselves.

i would say have LRMs keep their homing, but allow their Direct Fire(LOS) missiles be Fire and Forget,
so with LOS you dont lose a lock when looking away, allowing LRM mechs to fire and Twist as with other Weapons,
keep the Lock hold when you dont have LOS as to keep their Indirect fire from becoming too strong,
(also as LRMs are the only Indirect fire weapon, this wouldnt expose the Indirect fire LRM Boat)