220 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

First off id like to say personally i feel LRM arnt really in a good place,
they are rather unreliable when compared to other weapon Types and systems,
and unlike other weapon their utility is mostly based on the skill of the Targets,
not the Skill of the LRM Player which can make using them harder to use,
they also have many counters(AMS, RadarDep, ECM, Cover),

they are Skill to Skill, Amazing against those who dont know how to Counter them,
and they are Useless against those who know their Counters and how to use Cover,
That said i do feel LRMs need a rework,
the Current LRM Spreads & Cooldowns,
Type,....Spread,...Cooldown,.....(Clan)
LRM5,....4.2m........3.25sec,....(3.50sec)
LRM10,..4.2m........3.70sec,....(4.00sec)
LRM15,..5.2m........4.00sec,....(4.30sec)
LRM20,..5.2m........4.30sec,....(4.60sec)
(all velocities are 160)
-
the Current TAG, Artemis, & NARC Spread Bonuses,
TAG,........-25%LRMSpread(Need to hold TAG on Target as Missiles Hit)
Artemis,...-35%LRMSpread(Need to have LOS with Target as Missiles Hit)
NARC,.....-35%LRMSpread(ECM counters NARC, removing Effect)
(Note Artemis & NARC dont stack(max of -60% Spread for LRMs)
-
now the problem, indirect fire LRMs can be extremely annoying,
but they arnt really effective, as stated above their Counters,

LRM Max Spread Reduction,
4.2(LRM5/10) - 55%(TAG+Artemis(Need LOS) = 1.7m(160m Velocity)
5.2(LRM15/20) - 55%(TAG+Artemis(Need LOS) = 2.1m(160m Velocity)
for reference an LBX10 has a spread of 0.9m(1100m Velocity)

as far as i can tell the biggest problem with LRMs is their Indirect fire,
People Hate getting hit with Indirect fire LRMs when Boated,

so how to Fix this problem?


=LRM Spread Rework Concept=
Buff LRMs when Target is in LOS to enhance LRMs as a Direct fire weapon,
Nerf LRMs when Fired Indirectly decreasing their Indirect effectiveness,

Reworked LRM Stats
the Current LRM Spreads & Cooldowns,
Type,....Spread,...Cooldown,.....(Clan)
LRM5,....6.0m........3.40sec,....(3.70sec)
LRM10,..6.0m........3.70sec,....(4.00sec)
LRM15,..6.0m........4.00sec,....(4.30sec)
LRM20,..6.0m........4.30sec,....(4.60sec)
(all velocities are 240m(+80m)
-
then give all LRMs a Pseudo Artemis(-35%Spread),
this would give All LRMs 3.6m spread when in LOS, making them better for Direct fire,
however when fired Indirectly they will have 6m spread, reducing Indirect effectiveness,
(also make display an Icon(like TAG/NARC) for LOS, notifying player of LOS Bonus)

reworked TAG, Artemis, & NARC Spread Bonuses,
TAG,........-30%LRMSpread(Need to hold TAG on Target as Missiles Hit)
Artemis,...-30%LRMSpread(Need to have LOS with Target as Missiles Hit)
NARC,.....-50%LRMSpread(ECM counters NARC, removing Effect)
(Artemis & NARC dont stack)(Max -80% Spread for LRMs)
-
LOS LRMs = 3.9m Spread,
LOS LRMs + TAG = 2.1m Spread,
LOS LRMs + Artemis = 2.1m Spread,
LOS LRMs + Artemis + TAG = 1.2m Spread,
(remember Target has to be in LOS)
-
Indirect LRMs = 6m Spread,
Indirect LRMs + NARC = 3.0m Spread,
Indirect LRMs + NARC + TAG = 1.2m Spread,

this could reduce the effectiveness of long range Indirect fire Spamming,
wail also increasing the effectiveness of long range team play(TAG/NARC),
as well as the effectiveness of using LRMs as an direct fire weapon,



Comparison to Live Stats,
LOS LRMs = -0.3m Spread(-1.3m Spread LRM15/20)
LOS LRMs + TAG = -1.1m Spread(-1.8m Spread LRM15/20)
LOS LRMs + Artemis = -0.6m Spread(-1.3m Spread LRM15/20)
LOS LRMs + Artemis + TAG = -0.5m Spread(-0.9m Spread LRM15/20)
(remember Target has to be in LOS)
-
Indirect LRMs = +1.8m Spread(+0.8m Spread LRM15/20)
Indirect LRMs + NARC = +0.3m Spread(-0.4m Spread LRM15/20)
Indirect LRMs + NARC + TAG = -0.5m Spread(-0.9m Spread LRM15/20)
(Remember LRM Velocity is now 240(+50%) LRMs will arrive 50% sooner)

we can see LOS LRMs will only gain -0.3 to -1.7Spread and +50%Velocity,
and with that i feel would become a more reliable weapon system,
-
Indirect LRMs have much greater spread when Blank fired at a target,
but have comparable spread with NARC and less spread with NARC & TAG,
however the +50% Velocity aids in their reliability as with long range hits,
as your Target has less time to get to cover if initially exposed,

=(Poll)=

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 01 June 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Then all the weapons need to be reworked to bring them inline with reduced effectiveness of LRMs. Starting with implementing cone of fire with RNG on hit placement as per TT rules like LRMs are stuck with. Damage reduction via range as per TT rules. Once a direct fire weapon reaches a certain range damage will fall off to nothing outside of its maximum effective range (maximum range defined by TT rules).

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

Then all the weapons need to be reworked to bring them inline with reduced effectiveness of LRMs. Starting with implementing cone of fire with RNG on hit placement as per TT rules like LRMs are stuck with. Damage reduction via range as per TT rules. Once a direct fire weapon reaches a certain range damage will fall off to nothing outside of its maximum effective range (maximum range defined by TT rules).

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,
what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less so when uses indirectly,
to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are fired indirectly in TT,
wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 30 May 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[darqsyde]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,
what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less so when uses indirectly,
to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are fired indirectly in TT,
wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

You might want to wiat for MRMs before doing anything to LRMs in direct fire mode.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,
what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less some when uses indirectly,
to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are Fired indirectly in TT,
wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

And I'm all for balancing LRMS, except that they are too weak as to what they are. They are guided missiles that can be used indirectly. It is the other weapons that are out of line in comparison. So either buff LRMs in both direct and indirect fire or bring all other direct fire weapons in line with reduced effectiveness as per what I described.

What you want is unguided munitions and we have them. They are called SRMs. The trade off between SRMs and LRMs is that LRMs lose 1 point of damage per missile for the ability to be fired indirectly and have a longer range. When ATMs and MRMs are introduced the only thing that LRMs has going for it is indirect fire as those two weapon systems can only be fired direct mode with the same damage as an LRM.

[Andi Nagasia]

darqsyde, on 30 May 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

You might want to wiat for MRMs before doing anything to LRMs in direct fire mode.

um MRMs have no relation to LRMs, MRMs are longer Range DumbFire Missiles,
think SRMs with larger Tube Sizes and greater ranges, no lock on capabilities,

[LordMelvin]

I whole heartedly support making direct fire LRMs faster with flatter trajectories. Being able to effectively fire LRMs at 300-500m with LOS without hitting buildings/trees/tunnel ceilings above you would be great. Increasing spread for indirect fire would also mean that advancing through an LRM storm brought on by that ******* ECM Raven 700m out would be less of a living hell.

And maybe, just maybe, LRM boats will learn that joining the team is better for their health than sitting 800m+ out ineffectively firing their ammo into the air. As much as I love the free kill on an LRM 80 Stalker it's not fun for anyone to be killed like that.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

reduced effectiveness of LRMs??? um this isnt a Nerf LRM Topic,

Looks like it.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

what i am proposing is to make LRMs better with LOS, and less so when uses indirectly,

For what purpose? To make it worse at the thing it's supposed to do?

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

to better simulate the accuracy penalties when LRMs are fired indirectly in TT,

Like we simulate the accuracy of pilots in TT how?

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

wail also giving them better Viability when used as a Direct fire weapon,

Which it didn't need.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

And I'm all for balancing LRMS, except that they are too weak as to what they are. They are guided missiles that can be used indirectly. It is the other weapons that are out of line in comparison. So either buff LRMs in both direct and indirect fire or bring all other direct fire weapons in line with reduced effectiveness as per what I described.

its because of the Indirect fire why LRMs are in the Sorry state that they are in,
TT had Accuracy Penalties when Firing LRMs indirectly, all im proposing is a way to do that in MWO,
this Topic is about making LRMs a much more Reliable Weapon System, which is the most important part,

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

What you want is unguided munitions and we have them. They are called SRMs. The trade off between SRMs and LRMs is that LRMs lose 1 point of damage per missile for the ability to be fired indirectly and have a longer range. When ATMs and MRMs are introduced the only thing that LRMs has going for it is indirect fire as those two weapon systems can only be fired direct mode with the same damage as an LRM.

we dont have Ammo Switching, so DumbFire munitions are very unlikely,
also SRMs are a completely different Animal, please dont compare a lock on weapon to a non lock on weapon,
ATMs will likely be inferior to LRMs outside 270m(3DamageRange) and MRMs are DumbFire, so no lock onm
no matter if these weapon systems are Added LRMs will still be viable as a Long Range weapon,

under what i have proposed an single LRM20+A+TAG fired with LOS at 600m will be Much more Effective,
with 3sec Travel time, a 1.4m Spread and homing ability they will be able to compete with other weapons,
wail also retaining their use as an indirect fire weapon, just less so it you dont have NARC or TAG,

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

First off id like to say personally i feel LRM arnt really in a good place,
they are rather unreliable when compared to other weapon Types and systems,
and unlike other weapon their utility is mostly based on the skill of the Targets,
not the Skill of the LRM Player which can make using them harder to use,
they also have many counters(AMS, RadarDep, ECM, Cover),

My Highlander IIC would like to have a word with you.

Just to prove the point, I played 5 QP matches with my LRM mech. We lost the first 1, and won the subsequent 4. So, an 80% success rate.

I consistently manage to soften up and destroy targets of opportunity.

I don't get what the hubbub is about. LRMs aren't overpowered at all. I constantly alpha strike 4 LRM 20s and before my thumb is off the trigger button I've lost target lock. It's how it goes.

[Savage Wolf]

LordMelvin, on 30 May 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

I whole heartedly support making direct fire LRMs faster with flatter trajectories. Being able to effectively fire LRMs at 300-500m with LOS without hitting buildings/trees/tunnel ceilings above you would be great. Increasing spread for indirect fire would also mean that advancing through an LRM storm brought on by that ******* ECM Raven 700m out would be less of a living hell.

And maybe, just maybe, LRM boats will learn that joining the team is better for their health than sitting 800m+ out ineffectively firing their ammo into the air. As much as I love the free kill on an LRM 80 Stalker it's not fun for anyone to be killed like that.

It's not the indirect fire that makes them stay in the back and not bring backup weapons. It's the range. And frontline LRMers also need that indirect fire for the weapon system to be worth a damn. Hell, it is the reason it exists.
There are better ways of making backseat LRMers disappear than making the weapon even worse.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

its because of the Indirect fire why LRMs are in the Sorry state that they are in,
TT had Accuracy Penalties when Firing LRMs indirectly, all im proposing is a way to do that in MWO,
this Topic is about making LRMs a much more Reliable Weapon System, which is the most important part,


we dont have Ammo Switching, so DumbFire munitions are very unlikely,
also SRMs are a completely different Animal, please dont compare a lock on weapon to a non lock on weapon,
ATMs will likely be inferior to LRMs outside 270m(3DamageRange) and MRMs are DumbFire, so no lock onm
no matter if these weapon systems are Added LRMs will still be viable as a Long Range weapon,

under what i have proposed an single LRM20+A+TAG fired with LOS at 600m will be Much more Effective,
with 3sec Travel time, a 1.4m Spread and homing ability they will be able to compete with other weapons,
wail also retaining their use as an indirect fire weapon, just less so it you dont have NARC or TAG,

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.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 30 May 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

its because of the Indirect fire why LRMs are in the Sorry state that they are in,

Then why are you making it worse?

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Looks like it.

then read it again,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

For what purpose? To make it worse at the thing it's supposed to do?

LRMs are not indirect fire ONLY weapons, im sorry but LRMs right now arnt reliable which is why they arnt good,
with this change im seeking to make them a more reliable weapon system, which makes them more of a Choice,
as compared to what we have now, which is they are a unreliable weapon system,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Like we simulate the accuracy of pilots in TT how?

well as LRMs are Unique in MWO as they are a Homing weapon,
we can control the Accuracy they have called Spread, this is how,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Which it didn't need.

because they should Only be useful some times as an indirect fire weapon,
if your fighting against a target that doesnt know how to use cover properly,
Skill vs Skill its harder to use LRMs effectively, then it is to hide from them,

Puppy Monkey Baby, on 30 May 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

My Highlander IIC would like to have a word with you.

Just to prove the point, I played 5 QP matches with my LRM mech. We lost the first 1, and won the subsequent 4. So, an 80% success rate.

I consistently manage to soften up and destroy targets of opportunity.

I don't get what the hubbub is about. LRMs aren't overpowered at all. I constantly alpha strike 4 LRM 20s and before my thumb is off the trigger button I've lost target lock. It's how it goes.

i dont think they are ether, i would actually like to see them get a buff,
but as they are with indirect fire as it is, they will never be taken seriously,

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

then read it again,

Yep, still taking all the problems and making them worse and replacing them with stuff other weapons do better.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

LRMs are not indirect fire ONLY weapons, im sorry but LRMs right now arnt reliable which is why they arnt good,
with this change im seeking to make them a more reliable weapon system, which makes them more of a Choice,
as compared to what we have now, which is they are a unreliable weapon system,

They are primarily indirect weapons. Otherwise they are just bad LB-X autocannons. And it's the counters to LRMs that make them unreliable which you change absolutely nothing about.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

well as LRMs are Unique in MWO as they are a Homing weapon,
we can control the Accuracy they have called Spread, this is how,

No, Streaks are also homing. And so will ATMs.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

because they should Only be useful some times as an indirect fire weapon,
if your fighting against a target that doesnt know how to use cover properly,
Skill vs Skill its harder to use LRMs effectively, then it is to hide from them,

You say the weapon is unreleable and then admit you want to make it more situational and there be less times that you would want to use it? You contradict yourself.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

i dont think they are ether, i would actually like to see them get a buff,
but as they are with indirect fire as it is, they will never be taken seriously,

Exactly, so fix it instead of making it worse. How does making it worse at indirect fire make people want to take it more seriously.

[Andi Nagasia]

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.

so your saying that when you dont have a target NARC'ed or TAG'ed you should get Accuracy Penalties?
thats exactly what im proposing, only Nerfing LRMs when used indirectly with out NARC and TAG,

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

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.

im sorry if you really think that then you havent dont much research in to LRMs in MWO,
ive been a long time Proponent of making LRMs better, just ask Navid A1, or Bishop,
but i understand they wont just get a Buff with out a Nerf else where,

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

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.

um thats another Topic altogether,

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yep, still taking all the problems and making them worse and replacing them with stuff other weapons do better.

increasing LRM velocity by +50% wail only decreasing indirect fire Bonuses without NARC & TAG,
NARC & TAG do get a Spread Increase buts its rather Small so no real problem there,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

They are primarily indirect weapons. Otherwise they are just bad LB-X autocannons. And it's the counters to LRMs that make them unreliable which you change absolutely nothing about.

indirect fire is Why LRMs are in the State they are in, you can ignore that fact but thats the Truth,
PGI is unlikely to just Buff LRMs as the Problems with Buffing LRMs indirect fire,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

No, Streaks are also homing. And so will ATMs.

yes Streaks Home but they dont really Spread, they target a Mech Damage Locatons, so no Spread Stats,
ATMs yes they will act much like LRMs but we dont have ATMs at the Minute and know nothing of their MWO Stats,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

You say the weapon is unreleable and then admit you want to make it more situational and there be less times that you would want to use it? You contradict yourself.

increasing the Velocity by 50% wail also enhancing their LOS capabilities making them better with LOS,
all wail only really increasing spread when fired indirectly by 65%(LRM5/10) and 35%(LRM15/20)
wail also buffing NARC & TAG both by 25%, so the largest change is unassisted indirect fire,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Exactly, so fix it instead of making it worse. How does making it worse at indirect fire make people want to take it more seriously.

the Velocity Buff helps is much more than 1m spread, a buff of LRMs to 240 would help greatly,
increasing it to 320 could make them even better, but it may be too strong which is why im starting at +50%(240m)

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

so your saying that when you dont have a target NARC'ed or TAG'ed you should get Accuracy Penalties?
thats exactly what im proposing, only Nerfing LRMs when used indirectly with out NARC and TAG,

No, he said you don't get the penalties if you have C3. We all have C3, so no penalties to simulate.
Not that using TT as a balancing factor isn't always terrible.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

im sorry if you really think that then you havent dont much research in to LRMs in MWO,
ive been a long time Proponent of making LRMs better, just ask Navid A1, or Bishop,
but i understand they wont just get a Buff with out a Nerf else where,

Why would they not just get a buff? Everyone knows it needs it. Other underperforming weapon systems got buffs without a nerf. The spread reduction of LRM20 was without a nerf.
But if we should buff something, it should be the place where it's lacking: indirect fire. Then you can nerf it somewhere where it has plenty, like range.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

Yep, still taking all the problems and making them worse and replacing them with stuff other weapons do better.


They are primarily indirect weapons. Otherwise they are just bad LB-X autocannons. And it's the counters to LRMs that make them unreliable which you change absolutely nothing about.


No, Streaks are also homing. And so will ATMs.


You say the weapon is unreleable and then admit you want to make it more situational and there be less times that you would want to use it? You contradict yourself.



Exactly, so fix it instead of making it worse. How does making it worse at indirect fire make people want to take it more seriously.

In TT LRM's were not primarily indirect fire weapons. They are guided missiles (like SRM's, only thing dumb fired are supposed to be MRM's and rockets) used to directly engage the enemy. Yes, they could be fired indirectly, but at a huge penalty to accuracy, and requiring a spotting unit (somewhat like a forward observer calling in arty). Just look at Artemis. If LRM's are supposed to be indirect fire support, why was one of the most common devices developed to enhance them require line of sight?

Now what PGI has done has been to turn them into MWO's version of mech carried indirect fire support. The OP is simply wanting to switch that dynamic, reducing indirect fire ability for enhanced line of sight capability. The biggest issue with this that I see, isn't some problem with LRM's supposedly being 'indirect' weapons, it's that they will have a huge problem competing against ballistics and energy weapons in a trade. With lock on time and flight time, they will lose big time in a direct fire exchange with weapons that simply need to be pointed, triggered, and wait for the cooldown to repeat. Add in the spread effect of their damage, and LRM's would probably disappear entirely.

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

No, he said you don't get the penalties if you have C3. We all have C3, so no penalties to simulate.
Not that using TT as a balancing factor isn't always terrible.

let me just point out in MWO we all do share Targeting Data, but none of us have C3 Systems,
just pointing that out, unless we all have a 1Ton/Crit Piece of Equipment hiding some where,

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

Why would they not just get a buff? Everyone knows it needs it. Other underperforming weapon systems got buffs without a nerf. The spread reduction of LRM20 was without a nerf.
But if we should buff something, it should be the place where it's lacking: indirect fire. Then you can nerf it somewhere where it has plenty, like range.

many worry that if LRMs are Buffed then their Indirect fire may become too strong,
this is the problem LRMs are very situational, a higher velocity could help immensely with making them better,