220 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

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)

I think they should be much faster, like 600 speed. No homing in direct fire mode, instead they are basically really fast MRMs with a tight spread. The more I see about the comparison to LBX the more I realize the spread needs to be rather small for them to be effective. Shallow, maybe no, arc as well when using direct fire.

In indirect mode they should have a homing feature to the spot of ground where the target mech is standing instead of the mech itself. Lock is required but only like 1-1.5 sec to get that lock. High arc to mitigate terrain somewhat, but not so much they come straight down. Wider spread than what is seen in direct fire mode.

There might be a few more bits and pieces that would need to be ironed out, but you get the intent with this I think.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 09 June 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

I think they should be much faster, like 600 speed. No homing in direct fire mode, instead they are basically really fast MRMs with a tight spread. The more I see about the comparison to LBX the more I realize the spread needs to be rather small for them to be effective. Shallow, maybe no, arc as well when using direct fire.

im worried that with that LRMs would just become a weaker MRM, or LBX,
which is why i suggested fire and forget, let them keep their slow speed as to aid their Utility,
Hit a target with ACs and LRMs and the Target will have to stay Twisting longer as the LOS LRM mech doesnt,

Ruar, on 09 June 2017 - 12:10 PM, said:

In indirect mode they should have a homing feature to the spot of ground where the target mech is standing instead of the mech itself. Lock is required but only like 1-1.5 sec to get that lock. High arc to mitigate terrain somewhat, but not so much they come straight down. Wider spread than what is seen in direct fire mode.

my only worry is that im expecting Mech Mortars(i would love them in MWO)
and they are just as you suppose 600m Velocity no homing, but lockon(to get location) indirect fire

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

im worried that with that LRMs would just become a weaker MRM, or LBX,
which is why i suggested fire and forget, let them keep their slow speed as to aid their Utility,
Hit a target with ACs and LRMs and the Target will have to stay Twisting longer as the LOS LRM mech doesnt,


my only worry is that im expecting Mech Mortars(i would love them in MWO)
and they are just as you suppose 600m Velocity no homing, but lockon(to get location) indirect fire

I think the key would be they are better at range, 700-900m, than either MRM or LBX. That gives a layered approach to missiles. SRMs, MRM, LRM with some overlap of each at closer ranges.

LRMs should be the long range direct fire option for mechs moving up to engage at closer ranges. Right now they aren't because of the lock mechanic.

I don't know about mech mortars, but I just can't see something like that being useful in this game. There's really no tactical need for indirect fire because MWO is so fluid. The only reason to even have it in the game is because it's a core part of the lore for LRMs so it doesn't hurt to have it happen, it just needs to avoid being too strong.

[Acehilator]

Savage Wolf, on 09 June 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

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

Dafuq? Double/triple the effective range, no need to aim. Pre-LRM5 nerf their CT seeking ability was on the verge of being stupid OP, and they had what... 3,6m spread base? So 1,7 after Artemis + TAG, with chain fire of 5s or volley strenght of 25/30. 1,2m would be ridiculous coupled with LRM60/80. Two volleys and everybody who is looking into your general direction is CT open. But sure, go ahead and implement this. I have no problem with my LRM boats having even better K/D ratio. Had 3.5 in my Golden Boy before the nerf, currently 2.9 with my Awesome, 4.0 should be possible with the proposed changes.

Hm, why am I even arguing against... go for it!

Edited by Acehilator, 10 June 2017 - 06:31 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

Acehilator, on 10 June 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

Dafuq? Double/triple the effective range, no need to aim. Pre-LRM5 nerf their CT seeking ability was on the verge of being stupid OP, and they had what... 3,6m spread base? So 1,7 after Artemis + TAG, with chain fire of 5s or volley strenght of 25/30. 1,2m would be ridiculous coupled with LRM60/80. Two volleys and everybody who is looking into your general direction is CT open. But sure, go ahead and implement this. I have no problem with my LRM boats having even better K/D ratio. Had 3.5 in my Golden Boy before the nerf, currently 2.9 with my Awesome, 4.0 should be possible with the proposed changes.

Hm, why am I even arguing against... go for it!

Now you know why I stopped posting in this thread. People who have no clue tweaking missiles most likely will push them in the "right" direction. Then they can reap what they sow.

[Jep Jorgensson]

The bottom line remains the same people. It makes no difference what anyone offers in exchange for nerfing LRM's. After the haters flood the forum to cry about them being "OP", the buffs are going to disappear but the nerf will remain and they will become weaker than ever (which is exactly what the haters all want). PGI givith and PGI takith away. Never forget that people.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 10 June 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

The bottom line remains the same people. It makes no difference what anyone offers in exchange for nerfing LRM's. After the haters flood the forum to cry about them being "OP", the buffs are going to disappear but the nerf will remain and they will become weaker than ever (which is exactly what the haters all want). PGI givith and PGI takith away. Never forget that people.

Unless what the "haters" want is an LRM mechanic which makes them a long range support missile system that is effective the majority of the time instead of the current situation, and with the capability of doing indirect fire that isn't OP.

I mean, gosh... there's just no way people could want LRMs to actually be an option for long range damage that is effective and useful without all of the drawbacks from a locking/homing system.

*Edit-

We all know the biggest downfall to the way LRMs work is they are more dependent on your opponent's actions than your own. Opponents who use terrain, AMS, and radar dep can become nearly immune to LRMs. Opponents who go out into the open in slow mechs can be eaten alive by LRMs. A skillful LRM pilot who sits 300-500m away might only do minimal damage through the match because of terrain or because he's facing good pilots.

Changing the LRM mechanic isn't about nerfing them because LRMs are bad. It's about putting more power into the hands of the LRM player to use them skillfully while at the same time preventing them from becoming overpowered. There's just no real way a locking and homing mechanic can be used to reward skill and not be overpowered. Which means as long as LRMs home to a mech that is targeted by someone in LOS there is just no way to make LRMs strong enough they can be more about pilot skill instead of target skill.

Edited by Ruar, 10 June 2017 - 06:21 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Ruar, on 09 June 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

I don't know about mech mortars, but I just can't see something like that being useful in this game. There's really no tactical need for indirect fire because MWO is so fluid. The only reason to even have it in the game is because it's a core part of the lore for LRMs so it doesn't hurt to have it happen, it just needs to avoid being too strong.

Mortars are actually a less efficent but AMS-proof IDF option, but part of what makes them good would be, quite simply, being able to fire over cover manually. Hold down the fire button on mortars to engage IDF targeting, release to fire ala Gauss without the "lose charge" bit.

There are so, so many hillhumpers and poptarters I would delight in shelling. Give me a mortar firing mode I can aim that way and I will show you so many uses for one, you'll be able to supply enough salt for the Atlantic Ocean. Artillery cannons, for that matter- oh wait, PGI can't actually figure out split-location weapon mounts, even though every single one would fire on the torso crosshair.

Ruar, on 10 June 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Changing the LRM mechanic isn't about nerfing them because LRMs are bad. It's about putting more power into the hands of the LRM player to use them skillfully while at the same time preventing them from becoming overpowered. There's just no real way a locking and homing mechanic can be used to reward skill and not be overpowered. Which means as long as LRMs home to a mech that is targeted by someone in LOS there is just no way to make LRMs strong enough they can be more about pilot skill instead of target skill.

LRMs punish mistakes. You add even a bit of velocity, it widens the window an LRM user has to do so. As it is, pilot skill DOES matter for LRMs, because unless your opponent is dumb enough to waltz into the open while you have a perfect shot (in which case, you'd have killed him faster with direct fiire weapons), you have to be able to choose the right target and be able to deliver the payload before the window closes again. It's a predictive game for missile boats, which is part of why firing at extreme ranges is so useless- you're at the point of blind luck shooting things past 500m on most maps given current LRM velocity.

Seriously. It's not bloody hard. IDF velocity/unlocked fire mode to 200, direct locked fire to 240, lower the direct fire arc when locked a bit, normalize clustering to LRM 10 levels across the board, and allow for unlocked fire to be a flat shot rather than any arc whatsoever. They'd still be inferior to direct fire, but at least they'd hit things more often.

Well, it wouldn't be hard save for the churning fear that seems to emanate from the population any time LRMs aren't set to "only dangerous to the terribads" level. PPCs, ACs have low velocity? CRANK THOSE GUNS UP, BABY! Scatterdrizzle missiles might be able to hit you? OH NOES, SAVE US FROM THE NEXT LURMAGEDDON!

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 10 June 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Unless what the "haters" want is an LRM mechanic which makes them a long range support missile system that is effective the majority of the time instead of the current situation, and with the capability of doing indirect fire that isn't OP.

I mean, gosh... there's just no way people could want LRMs to actually be an option for long range damage that is effective and useful without all of the drawbacks from a locking/homing system.

*Edit-

We all know the biggest downfall to the way LRMs work is they are more dependent on your opponent's actions than your own. Opponents who use terrain, AMS, and radar dep can become nearly immune to LRMs. Opponents who go out into the open in slow mechs can be eaten alive by LRMs. A skillful LRM pilot who sits 300-500m away might only do minimal damage through the match because of terrain or because he's facing good pilots.

Changing the LRM mechanic isn't about nerfing them because LRMs are bad. It's about putting more power into the hands of the LRM player to use them skillfully while at the same time preventing them from becoming overpowered. There's just no real way a locking and homing mechanic can be used to reward skill and not be overpowered. Which means as long as LRMs home to a mech that is targeted by someone in LOS there is just no way to make LRMs strong enough they can be more about pilot skill instead of target skill.

So you want LRM's to lose their uniqueness and blend in with the other weapons. Then how about cranking up their damage or accuracy? Can a LRM one-shot a fresh mech at any range? No, of course not. If a fresh mech gets in close to an LRM boat then it will be quickly sunk. That is pretty much a given. So how about we go along with what you are saying and make it so they can deal more damage or better yet, actually target specific body parts like in the MW3 intro. That would be so nice! As it is, I wait for them to lock onto the mech and (if there are no obstructions) let fly and hope that at least some of my missiles hit not a particular body part, but any part of the mech itself. Would you like that? I could go for this! That and getting rid of the 180 meter minimum range.

I guess I have not mastered the oh-so-hard-to-learn art of point-and-shoot like you have. Maybe that was why they sent me to the mortars instead of the riflemen when I was in the marines.

I thought everybody knew that one, Captain Obvious (and no, I do not need a hotel room right now).

Oh really? Then how about we try that out with some other weapon systems first? Make Maybe Gauss and PPC's even slower (cut say 50% speed). Double laser burn time. What else? Hmm.... Oh, I know! Erase ALL quirks from the game! And remember, it would not be nerfing, just a change in the game mechanic like you wanted! I am glad that we could finally agree on something!

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 12 June 2017 - 07:20 PM.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 12 June 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

So you want LRM's to lose their uniqueness and blend in with the other weapons. Then how about cranking up their damage or accuracy? Can a LRM one-shot a fresh mech at any range? No, of course not. If a fresh mech gets in close to an LRM boat then it will be quickly sunk. That is pretty much a given. So how about we go along with what you are saying and make it so they can deal more damage or better yet, actually target specific body parts like in the MW3 intro. That would be so nice! As it is, I wait for them to lock onto the mech and (if there are no obstructions) let fly and hope that at least some of my missiles hit not a particular body part, but any part of the mech itself. Would you like that? I could go for this! That and getting rid of the 180 meter minimum range.

I guess I have not mastered the oh-so-hard-to-learn art of point-and-shoot like you have. Maybe that was why they sent me to the mortars instead of the riflemen when I was in the marines.

I thought everybody knew that one, Captain Obvious (and no, I do not need a hotel room right now).

Oh really? Then how about we try that out with some other weapon systems first? Make Maybe Gauss and PPC's even slower (cut say 50% speed). Double laser burn time. What else? Hmm.... Oh, I know! Erase ALL quirks from the game! And remember, it would not be nerfing, just a change in the game mechanic like you wanted! I am glad that we could finally agree on something!

No, I want LRMs to remain unique, but I want them to be primarily used for direct fire with the option for indirect when the situation warrants. And I'm good with adjusting damage (spread mainly), speed, and other attributes if needed so they can become an effective direct fire weapon. The first step is acknowledging they need to be good at direct fire which will require removing the homing mechanic as it currently exists in the game. I see no issue with the minimum arming distance in and of itself since LRM boats should have secondary weapons. At the same time if changes are made and it's shown that LRMs need to be able to shoot closer then I see no issue with changing the range to 120 or 90m.

Nerfing is reducing somethings power. The mechanic change I'm talking about is giving LRMs more power at direct fire and less power at indirect fire. They still retain the ability for indirect fire but it won't be as strong as we currently see. At the same time they are able to be more effective because they can be used without a lock out to 900m or so. While I realize you might consider this a nerf since your history as a mortar man makes you favor indirect fire the fact is the game doesn't even need indirect fire, and any inclusion should be about flavor. I think there is room for indirect to exist in the game and LRMs provide a great way to make that happen. But it needs to be a fairly weak capability best suited for helping move the enemy team, softening up other LRM mechs, and being a nuisance while the teams are maneuvering.

Oh, and with the system I propose you lose one counter to LRMs which is radar dep because it won't have any real value. You also put damage more in the hand of the LRM pilot and less reliant on what the opponent is doing.

Edited by Ruar, 12 June 2017 - 07:57 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

No, I want LRMs to remain unique, but I want them to be primarily used for direct fire with the option for indirect when the situation warrants. And I'm good with adjusting damage (spread mainly), speed, and other attributes if needed so they can become an effective direct fire weapon.

You cannot make LRMs a good direct-fire weapon, because that slot is already occupied by lasers, ACs, PPCs, and Gauss rifles,none of which spread damage, all of which are point-and-shoot weapons.

Quote

the game doesn't even need indirect fire

Says the poptarters and hill-humpers as they roll off yet another pepsigoose barrage, followed by sheltering behind their damageproof rocks and hills. Indirect fire weapons break positional superiority at the cost of being less accurate as to where the damage gets delivered. The problem with LRMs is that they're too inaccurate at most ranges to deliver ANY damage thanks to obscenely low velocity, and larger launchers overscatter that damage to silly levels.

Frankly, we need more IDF. Gimme mortars that fire in ballistic arcs. If PGI could buy a coding clue, artillery cannons. Mortars are spread damage (and given their arc of fire, inherently less accurate) but ignore AMS fire. Artillery cannons deliver a limited AoE blast but are both bulky and heavy for their ability (and frankly, should be slow guns at best).

Or let me destroy terrain (hahahaha, yeah right PGI!) if I can't bypass it at a cost, that being near-instant delivery and being able to dictate where my damage goes. I can't point my LRM 20 at your head and blow it off, after all. Heck, I can even manage THAT with enough LB-X shots.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 14 June 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

You cannot make LRMs a good direct-fire weapon, because that slot is already occupied by lasers, ACs, PPCs, and Gauss rifles,none of which spread damage, all of which are point-and-shoot weapons.



Says the poptarters and hill-humpers as they roll off yet another pepsigoose barrage, followed by sheltering behind their damageproof rocks and hills. Indirect fire weapons break positional superiority at the cost of being less accurate as to where the damage gets delivered. The problem with LRMs is that they're too inaccurate at most ranges to deliver ANY damage thanks to obscenely low velocity, and larger launchers overscatter that damage to silly levels.

Frankly, we need more IDF. Gimme mortars that fire in ballistic arcs. If PGI could buy a coding clue, artillery cannons. Mortars are spread damage (and given their arc of fire, inherently less accurate) but ignore AMS fire. Artillery cannons deliver a limited AoE blast but are both bulky and heavy for their ability (and frankly, should be slow guns at best).

Or let me destroy terrain (hahahaha, yeah right PGI!) if I can't bypass it at a cost, that being near-instant delivery and being able to dictate where my damage goes. I can't point my LRM 20 at your head and blow it off, after all. Heck, I can even manage THAT with enough LB-X shots.

There is almost no place on any of the maps where you can't flank around someone poptarting. The only reason a poptarter can be a problem is because you aren't using terrain properly yourself.

The current version of LRMs isn't very effective against poptarters, my suggestions would make them better suited to flushing people out of cubbies compared to just a speed increase.

And the argument against LRMs being good at direct fire is just ludicrous. Every other weapon in the game is about direct fire, making LRMs just as effective at direct fire is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially since making them strong at indirect fire would make them the single most overpowered weapon in the game. Strong indirect fire is the bane of every FPS game put out. Heck, the current version of LRMs have the ability to be overpowered in some circumstances which is why so many people want to see LRMs changed.

[Andi Nagasia]

well they could also work with Angle, to make them more reliable,

make LRMs(LOS)Direct Fire) Rise 45* stopping 15m off the ground(over Allies head) then fall 45* into target,
this would allow them to work better in the Tunnel and under the garage in Crimson, as well as under HPG,

make LRMs(Indirect Fire) Rise 60* stopping 45m off the ground(over Allies head) then fall 60* into target,
this would make LRMs more effective at indirectly bypassing cover, but more susceptible to AMS,

(Image not loading for some reason)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 14 June 2017 - 04:52 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Ruar, on 14 June 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

There is almost no place on any of the maps where you can't flank around someone poptarting. The only reason a poptarter can be a problem is because you aren't using terrain properly yourself.

See also hillhumping, not just poptarting. That is, being a smart fellow and using terrain to absorb fire massively reduces damage taken. It's pretty much the standard, because hey, it makes sense. Poking over terrain, delivering a salvo, then letting the invincible hill/rock/random HPG invisible wall soak up the return fire. And being a perpetual missile type, I'm quite familiar with having to bypass terrain to hit things via flanking and such.

Indirect fire weapons let you flush people out of this sort of terrain, meaning it's not just a matter of flanking them, it's a matter of the terrain-humper having to move because INCOMING. For now, that's just the humble LRM. It could be mortar shells. It could be a cut-down Mech portable artillery gun. None of them should focus damage like laservomit or gauss/PPC or AC's, but they should be accurate, wear down targets by brute force (spread damage, vs direct-fire's often pinpoint and frontloaded damage), and defeat terrain features if you want to maintain a relatively static position by going over them and smacking the opponent.

Quote

The current version of LRMs isn't very effective against poptarters, my suggestions would make them better suited to flushing people out of cubbies compared to just a speed increase.

Give me faster, flat-shooting dumbfired (no lock) LRMs and I can put a flight into a poptarter on his way through. Even if you give me just faster LRMs and I'm more likely to get those LRMs to the target before they become covered again, too. Accuracy is the thing that LRMs lack most, and that means velocity, spread, and arc.

Quote

And the argument against LRMs being good at direct fire is just ludicrous. Every other weapon in the game is about direct fire, making LRMs just as effective at direct fire is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially since making them strong at indirect fire would make them the single most overpowered weapon in the game. Strong indirect fire is the bane of every FPS game put out. Heck, the current version of LRMs have the ability to be overpowered in some circumstances which is why so many people want to see LRMs changed.

LRMs aren't even strong at indirect fire- none of their buffs apply (primarily Artemis). It's just they're the best option because there is NO other option. If you're killing people with IDF, it's with maximum spread shots that are grinding the entire target down at the worst possible ammo:useful damage ratio your launchers can deliver. Mostly, you're compensating for that with sheer volume of fire, which is why one missile boat on Polar is annoying, but three is enough to drop a target in a reasonable amount of time.

All I want is a decent weapon, not one that only works to deadly and quick effect because you mounted 30 freaking tons of launcher, another 10 of ammo, and hoped nobody noticed while you attempt to empty it in someone's direction so the lock holds long enough for it to get there. I don't want more damage, but I'd like large launchers not to suffer an effective damage penalty because of increased spread. I don't want missiles that fly like Gauss rounds, but I do want missiles that are effective out to at least 700m or so rather than merely 500 or less. And I'd like to be able to not have my weapon system suddenly stuck in a 20-30 meter window because someone found a roof or a tunnel.

LRMs as it stands now can be shut down completely with easily sourced equipment that weigh far less than the effective weight it takes to use the LRMs. ECM. Stacked AMS (if LRMs were anything but situational trash, AMS would still hose them anyway if it was actually worth it). A fricking' rock. A tunnel roof.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 14 June 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

See also hillhumping, not just poptarting. That is, being a smart fellow and using terrain to absorb fire massively reduces damage taken. It's pretty much the standard, because hey, it makes sense. Poking over terrain, delivering a salvo, then letting the invincible hill/rock/random HPG invisible wall soak up the return fire. And being a perpetual missile type, I'm quite familiar with having to bypass terrain to hit things via flanking and such.

Indirect fire weapons let you flush people out of this sort of terrain, meaning it's not just a matter of flanking them, it's a matter of the terrain-humper having to move because INCOMING. For now, that's just the humble LRM. It could be mortar shells. It could be a cut-down Mech portable artillery gun. None of them should focus damage like laservomit or gauss/PPC or AC's, but they should be accurate, wear down targets by brute force (spread damage, vs direct-fire's often pinpoint and frontloaded damage), and defeat terrain features if you want to maintain a relatively static position by going over them and smacking the opponent.



Give me faster, flat-shooting dumbfired (no lock) LRMs and I can put a flight into a poptarter on his way through. Even if you give me just faster LRMs and I'm more likely to get those LRMs to the target before they become covered again, too. Accuracy is the thing that LRMs lack most, and that means velocity, spread, and arc.



LRMs aren't even strong at indirect fire- none of their buffs apply (primarily Artemis). It's just they're the best option because there is NO other option. If you're killing people with IDF, it's with maximum spread shots that are grinding the entire target down at the worst possible ammo:useful damage ratio your launchers can deliver. Mostly, you're compensating for that with sheer volume of fire, which is why one missile boat on Polar is annoying, but three is enough to drop a target in a reasonable amount of time.

All I want is a decent weapon, not one that only works to deadly and quick effect because you mounted 30 freaking tons of launcher, another 10 of ammo, and hoped nobody noticed while you attempt to empty it in someone's direction so the lock holds long enough for it to get there. I don't want more damage, but I'd like large launchers not to suffer an effective damage penalty because of increased spread. I don't want missiles that fly like Gauss rounds, but I do want missiles that are effective out to at least 700m or so rather than merely 500 or less. And I'd like to be able to not have my weapon system suddenly stuck in a 20-30 meter window because someone found a roof or a tunnel.

LRMs as it stands now can be shut down completely with easily sourced equipment that weigh far less than the effective weight it takes to use the LRMs. ECM. Stacked AMS (if LRMs were anything but situational trash, AMS would still hose them anyway if it was actually worth it). A fricking' rock. A tunnel roof.

It's like you haven't even bothered to read my suggestions for changes to LRMs.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 12 June 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

No, I want LRMs to remain unique, but I want them to be primarily used for direct fire with the option for indirect when the situation warrants. And I'm good with adjusting damage (spread mainly), speed, and other attributes if needed so they can become an effective direct fire weapon. The first step is acknowledging they need to be good at direct fire which will require removing the homing mechanic as it currently exists in the game. I see no issue with the minimum arming distance in and of itself since LRM boats should have secondary weapons. At the same time if changes are made and it's shown that LRMs need to be able to shoot closer then I see no issue with changing the range to 120 or 90m.

Nerfing is reducing somethings power. The mechanic change I'm talking about is giving LRMs more power at direct fire and less power at indirect fire. They still retain the ability for indirect fire but it won't be as strong as we currently see. At the same time they are able to be more effective because they can be used without a lock out to 900m or so. While I realize you might consider this a nerf since your history as a mortar man makes you favor indirect fire the fact is the game doesn't even need indirect fire, and any inclusion should be about flavor. I think there is room for indirect to exist in the game and LRMs provide a great way to make that happen. But it needs to be a fairly weak capability best suited for helping move the enemy team, softening up other LRM mechs, and being a nuisance while the teams are maneuvering.

Oh, and with the system I propose you lose one counter to LRMs which is radar dep because it won't have any real value. You also put damage more in the hand of the LRM pilot and less reliant on what the opponent is doing.

Indirect-fire is the bread and butter of LRM's and everybody knows it. If you want direct-fire missiles, use either ATM's or MRM's (they will both be here next month). Leave LRM's alone. They are the only weapon that can be used in the IDF role (though not as well as when they actually have LOS) and that alone makes them unique. They are not and can never be an effective direct-fire weapon. Min range, horrible accuracy, countless counters, complete inability to target a specific body part, much more fragility due to having to bring far more ammo than any other weapon system which makes them walking roman candles, the list goes on.

Nerfing refers to reducing a weapon's effectiveness, not just its power. If PGI reduced the accuracy of every other weapon in the game, making them not-so-pinpoint anymore, would you not consider that a nerf? You would and you know it. So quit changing the labels. LRM's are already weaker when they do not have LOS than when they do as is. Sounds like what you want is for LRM's to become a joke. Just something to annoy the other team with but cannot really measure up to the other chosen weapon systems. Typical LRM hater.

Radar dep is never going away. Too many people like it and use it. So try coming down from Fantasia already.

Ruar, on 14 June 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:

There is almost no place on any of the maps where you can't flank around someone poptarting. The only reason a poptarter can be a problem is because you aren't using terrain properly yourself.

The current version of LRMs isn't very effective against poptarters, my suggestions would make them better suited to flushing people out of cubbies compared to just a speed increase.

And the argument against LRMs being good at direct fire is just ludicrous. Every other weapon in the game is about direct fire, making LRMs just as effective at direct fire is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially since making them strong at indirect fire would make them the single most overpowered weapon in the game. Strong indirect fire is the bane of every FPS game put out. Heck, the current version of LRMs have the ability to be overpowered in some circumstances which is why so many people want to see LRMs changed.

I used to try that with my brawlers. They either poptart from a high-up place that I cannot reach without JJ's or when I find them I also find their entire team surrounding them and looking right at me. I usually last about two (maybe five) seconds after that. No thanks. I learned my lesson. I would rather beat them down with my indirect-fire LRM's that also suppresses them and helps to protect the rest of my team.

Less effective missiles are not going to flush anyone out, just tickle them.

LRM's cannot possibly hope to compete with the other weapons in a direct-fire contest and everyone (including you) knows it. Furthermore, Battletech is NOT supposed to be a FPS game, period. PGI making the boneheaded decision to try to blend them together like this and the people pushing it to become a pure FPS game are the real problems here. Assuming you are correct about them being "OP" in some circumstances, then do you deny that under other circumstances they are clearly at a severe disadvantage or completely useless (either too close or too far)?

Ruar, on 14 June 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

It's like you haven't even bothered to read my suggestions for changes to LRMs.

Bad suggestions are bad suggestions no matter how you slice them.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 15 June 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 15 June 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Indirect-fire is the bread and butter of LRM's and everybody knows it. If you want direct-fire missiles, use either ATM's or MRM's (they will both be here next month). Leave LRM's alone. They are the only weapon that can be used in the IDF role (though not as well as when they actually have LOS) and that alone makes them unique. They are not and can never be an effective direct-fire weapon. Min range, horrible accuracy, countless counters, complete inability to target a specific body part, much more fragility due to having to bring far more ammo than any other weapon system which makes them walking roman candles, the list goes on.

Nerfing refers to reducing a weapon's effectiveness, not just its power. If PGI reduced the accuracy of every other weapon in the game, making them not-so-pinpoint anymore, would you not consider that a nerf? You would and you know it. So quit changing the labels. LRM's are already weaker when they do not have LOS than when they do as is. Sounds like what you want is for LRM's to become a joke. Just something to annoy the other team with but cannot really measure up to the other chosen weapon systems. Typical LRM hater.

Radar dep is never going away. Too many people like it and use it. So try coming down from Fantasia already.


I used to try that with my brawlers. They either poptart from a high-up place that I cannot reach without JJ's or when I find them I also find their entire team surrounding them and looking right at me. I usually last about two (maybe five) seconds after that. No thanks. I learned my lesson. I would rather beat them down with my indirect-fire LRM's that also suppresses them and helps to protect the rest of my team.

Less effective missiles are not going to flush anyone out, just tickle them.

LRM's cannot possibly hope to compete with the other weapons in a direct-fire contest and everyone (including you) knows it. Furthermore, Battletech is NOT supposed to be a FPS game, period. PGI making the boneheaded decision to try to blend them together like this and the people pushing it to become a pure FPS game are the real problems here. Assuming you are correct about them being "OP" in some circumstances, then do you deny that under other circumstances they are clearly at a severe disadvantage or completely useless (either too close or too far)?


Bad suggestions are bad suggestions no matter how you slice them.

So what this all boils down to is you like indirect fire, you want strong indirect fire, you think LRMs are the answer, and you don't really care if the game will be ruined as long as you get the indirect fire you so desire.

Yes, I say ruined because I've played other FPS games with strong indirect fire and I've seen how it makes games unplayable. There are times now in MWO where a match is basically unplayable because of LRM spam. It's not often (thank goodness) because the LRM mechanic is either very strong or not worth much, but when it happens you might as well just accept the match is not going to be fun and wait for the next one.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

It's like you haven't even bothered to read my suggestions for changes to LRMs.

No, I just think they'd be horrible changes.

Quote

There are times now in MWO where a match is basically unplayable because of LRM spam.

You mean when someone pins you down and spams missiles? That's not unplayable, someone is clearly playing, and what they're doing is burning ammo to hold you in place. Finite ammo, I might add. Fire too few missiles and people run through the drizzle. Fire lots, and you're wasting ammo (read: damage) on the terrain to keep the other team immobilized, hoping the rest of yours can take advantage of it.

Oh, and you'll generally run through ammo like a sieve if you're doing it for any amount of time. Most players just don't want to bait and outwait the five minutes or so of barrages before the average boat starts to run dry and you're left with a opponent that can only seriously fire back with a few lasers or other secondaries at best. Smart missile chuckers don't want that- every low-odds shot you waste is that much less damage before your targets come knocking. Generally,you're hoping some shmuck gets impatient, rushes out and breaks the deadlock by dying uselessly before your constant barrage of near-useless shots runs out and you get overrun.

You want "strong indirect fire", I'll direct you at games where artillery can one-shot someone through their thin top armor/citadel/(insert weak point for massive damage here) . MWO's LRM fire, even if it was more accurate, wouldn't even come remotely close to that. IDF damage is inherently the weakest form of damage in MWO (spread, zero choice to direct that spread, spread does not decrease with range and cannot be upgraded by equipment). Reality is, a third of your damage that -hits- is wasted damage, nor does it automatically get drilled into vitals, crits abominably, and kills only because it brute-force depletes the HP of most targets in six places at once.

Now, you start putting SPGs out there and make my IDF automatically hit rear armor, then you have all the reason in the world to fear "strong indirect fire". But LRMs are anything but. Turning them into a direct fire weapon with token IDF capacity (which would be a half-baked one at best) is absurd.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 15 June 2017 - 01:08 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 15 June 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

So what this all boils down to is you like indirect fire, you want strong indirect fire, you think LRMs are the answer, and you don't really care if the game will be ruined as long as you get the indirect fire you so desire.

Yes, I say ruined because I've played other FPS games with strong indirect fire and I've seen how it makes games unplayable. There are times now in MWO where a match is basically unplayable because of LRM spam. It's not often (thank goodness) because the LRM mechanic is either very strong or not worth much, but when it happens you might as well just accept the match is not going to be fun and wait for the next one.

Actually, I am a realist. I realize that this is a combined-arms game and play it as such. I have all kinds of mechs ranging from LRM boats to snipers to brawlers to flankers to support to piranha and everything in between. I do not want one weapon to rule them all (even though PPC's and Gauss are competing for the title) which is why I am fighting to protect LRM's. Simple as that. So I can see why it was beyond your level of understanding.

So you are saying that using one or more of the multiple counters to LRM's (which is the only weapon system that has any counters against it (aside from SSRM's)) such as AMS, ECM, radar dep, cover (standing behind a big rock or building or in a tunnel), concealment (move somewhere where nobody can see you so they lose lock), using the terrain to get in close to them where they are weak, sniping at them from beyond their max range where they are useless, see and hear the blaring "Incoming Missile" warning right in front of you, etc are all too hard for you to do? o.0 You win. I cannot think of a single comeback for that, it is just too sad to think about. You poor guy, I feel so bad for you.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 17 June 2017 - 02:07 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

@Andi Nagasia Looks like LRM's will be getting a double-nerf this patch on top of the two they already got last time and the time before that (yet more catering to the LRM haters). Still think that PGI would do anything that would end up being a buff for LRM's in the long run or at all now? PGI givith and PGI takith away. Simple as that.

I give you credit for seemingly being the sole representative from PGI that actually engages with us, but you seem a bit too optimistic towards your bosses and at times like now, it is coming back to bite you in the a$$. You might want to talk to them about that (not that they will listen to anything besides all the money rolling in).

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 19 June 2017 - 07:14 PM.