220 replies to this topic

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

In TT, LRMs were fired indirectly whether you had LOS or not. That's how the system worked.

You made your normal to-hit roll for the LRM launcher, and then if you scored a hit you rolled on the LRM X column (5, 10, 15, or 20) to see how many of the fired missiles hit. Then you broke that number into groups of 5, with each group striking its own location on the mech.

For instance, an LRM 15 would be fired at a mech. It hit, then a die roll on the aforementioned table determined how many out of 15 actually struck the mech. 9 on average, which meant 1 group of 5 and 1 group of 4.

That's how it works in the tabletop game.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

im not disagreeing that in the universe they act as indirect fire weapons, but thats just not all they do,
im just looking at the current state of LRMs, and seeing how they can be changed to be better,

personally i feel what i proposed would help LRMs as a weapon system in MWO,
LRMs would get faster and more Accurate with LOS, NARC & TAG doesnt change much,
and only Nerf is to people who are firing LRMs indirectly without NARC & TAG,
-
you may not agree, but i respect your Opinion,
i hope we can discuss a good middle ground for LRMs,

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.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

you may not agree, but i respect your Opinion,
i hope we can discuss a good middle ground for LRMs,

Wouldn't the middle ground in this case be to leave it like it is? You want to nerf indirect fire and we want to buff it. So the middle would be doing nothing.

And I really there must be something we misunderstand about eachother, because our analysis of the LRMs problems seems similar but our solutions are polar opposites. So to me it sounds like you see the problem, but just want make it bigger, for some reason. Something doesn't add up.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

Good god man, now your changing the argument from 'indirect fire' being the ability to fire on a target you can't see to it meaning that the shot has to move in a straight line to the target. Indirect fire has always meant the ability to shoot at something you can't see, generally over terrain. It has never meant the arc of the shot. Does this mean ballistics are indirect because you have to lead a target, or in real life you have to elevate a weapons barrel to compensate for 'drop' in the round?

In TT indirect fire means engaging a target not in line of sight, direct fire is the opposite. Your whole argument is that LRM's are meant to be indirect fire weapons, lobbed over hills or intervening terrain, just because IS launchers have an arc to their travel. I simply stated the direct rules from the source material showing how that is incorrect, that if you have LRM's you MAY fire them indirectly, but with huge limitations and penalties.

Indirectly means not having line of sight, directly means firing at a target right in front of you with LOS, the arc of the shot doesn't even matter in that situation. YOU are confusing the angle of attack with either it is direct or indirect.

No, I didn't change my argument at all. I stated from the very beginning that LRMs are indirect fired weapons regardless of LOS. There is no confusion on my part since a direct fired weapon is fired in a straight line that goes until the energy is dissipated. An indirect fired weapon is launched at 90 degrees and arcs in a ballistic trajectory. I've stated that much. I've also differentiated between the rules on indirect fire and the weapon firing indirectly even in LOS.

[Dago Red]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

Yeah, because anyone who actually uses LRMs effectively in MWO knows you never fire them beyond 500m anyway, nullifying what range advantage it had while not having the massive minimum range disadvantage and making them direct fire only makes them fire faster because you don't need a lock. So MRMs will beat LRMs in all areas.


How is that different than LRMs?

Which is why I was proposing giving them a faster travel time and flat trajectory when fired directly. That should make them actually more likely to hit a longer range target. Basically make them long distance streaks functionally.

Probably worth reiterating the unlike the OP I'm not advocating nerfing the indirect fire at all because it's already bad enough as is. But it does add versatility.

I've played with enough people who either jsut have garbage aim or terrible internet that screws up any chance of getting lead time consistent to know that for some people locked tracking is why they can contribute at all. MRM's will likely be better for the higher skill brackets but they fill a different niche.

Edited by Dago Red, 30 May 2017 - 02:07 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

MRMs dont have homing, they dont lock on, they will be more like MIssile LBX than they will be LRMs,
and you dont lead a target with LRMs you will have to with MRMs, so here i will say yes they arnt competing,

LRMs and MRMs are both going to compete with LB-X autocannons, except in different hardpoints. And yes, one needs a lock, the other does not. Making the one that doesn't superior.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Puppy Monkey Baby, on 30 May 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

You made your normal to-hit roll for the LRM launcher, and then if you scored a hit you rolled on the LRM X column (5, 10, 15, or 20) to see how many of the fired missiles hit. Then you broke that number into groups of 5, with each group striking its own location on the mech.

For instance, an LRM 15 would be fired at a mech. It hit, then a die roll on the aforementioned table determined how many out of 15 actually struck the mech. 9 on average, which meant 1 group of 5 and 1 group of 4.

That's how it works in the tabletop game.

Yes, that is how it worked and direct fire weapons had to roll on a table to determine where they impacted. No pinpoint damage there. I was speaking about how they actually left the launchers.

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

Wouldn't the middle ground in this case be to leave it like it is? You want to nerf indirect fire and we want to buff it. So the middle would be doing nothing.

And I really there must be something we misunderstand about eachother, because our analysis of the LRMs problems seems similar but our solutions are polar opposites. So to me it sounds like you see the problem, but just want make it bigger, for some reason. Something doesn't add up.

i just feel that LOS LRMs should have less Spread,
perhaps instead increasing LRM spread to 7 it should only be 6,
doing so would make what i proposed better for all types of LRMs not changing indirect fire too much,
(i think indirect fire LRMs would be only nerfed by 15% but LOS TAG NARC Artemis would all be Buffed)

[MaximusPayne]

Don't see the point myself. To get vets to use LRMs in FW? Even with a LOS buff, vets will still prefer the pinpoint precision of lasers and ACs over LRMs and even with an indirect fire penalty, boaters will still alphastrike into terrain at first lock. Boaters average about a 30% accuracy with LRMs now and they don't care. More LRM buffs and penalties will only be ignored. LRMers will still LRM and vets will still win.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

i just feel that LOS LRMs should have less Spread,
perhaps instead increasing LRM spread to 7 it should only be 6,
doing so would make what i proposed better for all types of LRMs not changing indirect fire too much,
(i think indirect fire LRMs would be only nerfed by 15% but LOS TAG NARC Artemis would all be Buffed)

Why are you turning an indirectly fired weapon into a direct fired one? If your goal is to buff them to be useful then do it in a way that emphasizes their difference from all the other direct fire weapons out there. That is to make them inaccurate at closer ranges with bonuses to accuracy and/or to the number of missiles hit the longer the range they are fired at while they speed up as they fly to their target in an arc.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 30 May 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Dago Red, on 30 May 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

Which is why I was proposing giving them a faster travel time and flat trajectory when fired directly. That should make them actually more likely to hit a longer range target. Basically make them long distance streaks functionally.

I would actually prefer the arc even when firing with LOS because then I also avoid teammates. But yeah, velocity always helps. That's one of the good things about the skill tree. Velocity for LRMs.

Dago Red, on 30 May 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

Probably worth reiterating the unlike the OP I'm not advocating nerfing the indirect fire at all because it's already bad enough as is. But it does add versatility.

Huh, didn't catch that. And yeah, to me it not just adds versatility, it's why you want it in the first place. Because no weapon can replace it here. And it adds a whole new dynamic to the gameplay in general.

[sycocys]

I'm all for some sort of buff for LoS/hard locks, but I think it should be kept to arc (travel time) primarily with only small amounts to spread.

If you do too much spread reduction, we'll have cockpitting lrm alphas again.

--
Personally I'd rather see them implement C3 computers, rework ecm/bap, tag (only heat visible or with a skill upgrade), possibly have actual communications, sensors, and radar limits/upgrades both within the node tree as well as with hardware that needed to be installed on mechs.

Just going to be hard to make LRMs viable ever, if the game never has any depth to the info warfare system.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Ok here is your original post to the OP.

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

You have it backwards since LRMs should be more effective in indirect fire mode then they are in direct fire mode. Indirect fire ignores all terrain as the missiles go up a few hundred meters then come down ala cruise missile. The only penalties that they have for accuracy in indirect mode is without TAG, NARC, C3, or targeting computers being used to guide them in. It also should be much faster then direct fire mode as there is no terrain to interfere with the missile's guidance system.

No, I'm not confused about anything. I know what you want which is to nerf LRMs indirect fire capability and turn them into a longer ranged version of the Streaks.

I wonder how people would feel about PGI introducing IS Long Tom cannons that can be fired direct and indirectly while doing obscene amounts of damage to one spot on a mech.

Your clearly draw a distinction between LRM's firing in 'indirect' or 'direct' modes. Oh and TAG had no effect on LRM's unless they were semi-guided LRM's, and C3 units firing LRM's indirect ignore the C3 system and use the LRM indirect fire rules instead.

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

No, I didn't change my argument at all. I stated from the very beginning that LRMs are indirect fired weapons regardless of LOS. There is no confusion on my part since a direct fired weapon is fired in a straight line that goes until the energy is dissipated. An indirect fired weapon is launched at 90 degrees and arcs in a ballistic trajectory. I've stated that much. I've also differentiated between the rules on indirect fire and the weapon firing indirectly even in LOS.

So yes you did change your argument considerably, since even you referred to LRM's engaging targets indirectly or directly based on LOS. Now you are trying to claim that they fire in an arc, making all LRM's 'indirect' fire weapons after I posted the actual quote from the rules.

[James The Fox Dixon]

I'd even add in a similar mechanic like Air Strike and Artillery that where ever the crosshairs land is where to missiles come down regardless of lock and does damage to the area. That will improve the usefulness of LRMs.

[Tincan Nightmare]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

I'd even add in a similar mechanic like Air Strike and Artillery that where ever the crosshairs land is where to missiles come down regardless of lock and does damage to the area. That will improve the usefulness of LRMs.

LRM's already do this, if you fire without a lock they go to where your crosshairs are. Been that way since beta I think.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ok here is your original post to the OP.

Your clearly draw a distinction between LRM's firing in 'indirect' or 'direct' modes. Oh and TAG had no effect on LRM's unless they were semi-guided LRM's, and C3 units firing LRM's indirect ignore the C3 system and use the LRM indirect fire rules instead.

So yes you did change your argument considerably, since even you referred to LRM's engaging targets indirectly or directly based on LOS. Now you are trying to claim that they fire in an arc, making all LRM's 'indirect' fire weapons after I posted the actual quote from the rules.

If you noticed I went with the write up on how they fired which I got wrong in the beginning. I dropped the direct fire mode because it doesn't exist.

And I posted up the write up of the weapon itself. Let me get you that link again.

http://www.sarna.net...g_Range_Missile

"Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve their superior range by firing at a ballistic launch angle"

Ballistic launch angle is between 20-90 degrees for artillery and for missiles like the cruise missile they launch usually at 90 degrees then arc to their targets. It is not a straight trajectory like a bullet or a laser. My argument evolved with the facts did yours?

http://www.mpoweruk..../ballistics.htm

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 30 May 2017 - 02:25 PM.

[Dago Red]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 02:09 PM, said:

I would actually prefer the arc even when firing with LOS because then I also avoid teammates. But yeah, velocity always helps. That's one of the good things about the skill tree. Velocity for LRMs.


Huh, didn't catch that. And yeah, to me it not just adds versatility, it's why you want it in the first place. Because no weapon can replace it here. And it adds a whole new dynamic to the gameplay in general.

Basically my concern is making it to where an LRM mech that nut's up and gets it's own locks is a legitimate threat rather than an easy kill for literally any direct fire weapon. Also never having them be useless because the roof is too low would be nice.

They were a staple weapon on tabletop and I would love to see that be the case here again. I mean how many tabletop builds have a bunch of short and medium range weapons and then one LRM rack so they can reach out and touch people? Quite a few and it wasn't because they were intended to be ghetto artillery.

Edited by Dago Red, 30 May 2017 - 02:25 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

LRM's already do this, if you fire without a lock they go to where your crosshairs are. Been that way since beta I think.

They don't do damage AFAIK. They just pop to the ground and do nothing.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

They don't do damage AFAIK. They just pop to the ground and do nothing.

im abit confused Dumb Fired LRMs(firing LRMs without a lock) still do damage,

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

im abit confused Dumb Fired LRMs(firing LRMs without a lock) still do damage,

Then that was changed since I've been gone. Thank you for the information.