220 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

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,


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,


um thats another Topic altogether,

You have the rules wrong anyway on LRMs. The only time that they suffer a penalty when they are outside of LOS, but they are still guided weapons. They also fire indirectly irregardless if they have LOS or not.

I've played the game since Closed Beta, so I have a very solid understanding of how they work in MWO. I've also played a full year and change before you started playing. I was one of the people trying to get PGI to alter weapons in favor of TT balance. My post history shows this to be true.

Instead of focusing on LRMs as they aren't the problem you should be focusing on the direct fire weapons that do pin point damage. That's where the source of the unbalance is at. Direct fire weapons like gauss should be done with a cone of fire and an RNG to determine where they hit as per TT rules.

[Andi Nagasia]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

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.

yup, many dont know in TT SRMs do have Tracking,
if you wanted to get Technical, MWO SRMs being dumbfire should be doing 3damage a missile i think?

[Savage Wolf]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

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.

But this isn't TT and you perfectly summize why we cannot treat it as such. In MWO it needs to be primarily indirect fire or it will just be inferior to all other weapons. Currently that ability isn't strong enough to be competative, so this is where it needs a buff.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

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,


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,

In Closed Beta, PGI told us, specifically Russ and Paul, that all mechs have C3 built in with no cost in equipment or tonnage or crit slots.

[Dago Red]

Honestly leaving indirect as effective as it is now (not very) and giving a perfectly flat trajectory and velocity boost to direct fire would likely do the job.

Once people realize that getting line of sight and getting a little closer helps their damage numbers you'll see rainmakers annoying the potato's to death.

The minimum range, lower rack size, and tracking should be sufficient to differentiate them from MRM's when they drop.

Edited by Dago Red, 30 May 2017 - 01:26 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

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.

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

Quote

[color=#000000] [/color]Inner Sphere[color=#000000] LRM launchers achieve their superior range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range.

[/color]

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

That tells you that they are fired indirectly not directly.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

I've played the game since Closed Beta, so I have a very solid understanding of how they work in MWO. I've also played a full year and change before you started playing. I was one of the people trying to get PGI to alter weapons in favor of TT balance. My post history shows this to be true.

i dont see how bringing up your ten-year will make this comment more valid?
not all TT values can work in a FPS, thats just how translations work, just like RTSs to FPSs,

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Instead of focusing on LRMs as they aren't the problem you should be focusing on the direct fire weapons that do pin point damage. That's where the source of the unbalance is at. Direct fire weapons like gauss should be done with a cone of fire and an RNG to determine where they hit as per TT rules.

the source of the problem is the Targeting Mechanic, which LRMs use, ive made topics on Targeting reworks,
but this Topic is not those Topics, there im looking how the existing System could be changed to help LRMs,
its my Opinion that a slight Nerf to unassisted indirect fired LRMs for a Buff to LOS LRMs is what they need,

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

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,

They already whine on the forums calling out for LRM indirect fire to be nerfed to oblivion, so even in their current subpar state they whine. Not because they think indirect is too strong, but because it's even possible to begin with.
These are not the type of people that can or should be satisfied less all weapons are the same. So ignore them and let LRMs be viable but on it's own terms. Hell, it's the only way to do it at all.

[Savage Wolf]

Dago Red, on 30 May 2017 - 01:24 PM, said:

Honestly leaving indirect as effective as it is now (not very) and giving a perfectly flat trajectory and velocity boost to direct fire would likely do the job.

Once people realize that getting line of sight and getting a little closer helps their damage numbers you'll see rainmakers annoying the potato's to death.

The minimum range, lower rack size, and tracking should be sufficient to differentiate them from MRM's when they drop.

So we differentiate them from MRMs by having them be worse? But no, then only potatoes would use them. Everyone else would know better. Isn't that what we are trying to fix?

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

So we differentiate them from MRMs by having them be worse? But no, then only potatoes would use them. Everyone else would know better. Isn't that what we are trying to fix?

MRMs fire like SRMs so they are not in competition against LRM, confused this keeps coming up,

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

i dont see how bringing up your ten-year will make this comment more valid?
not all TT values can work in a FPS, thats just how translations work, just like RTSs to FPSs,


the source of the problem is the Targeting Mechanic, which LRMs use, ive made topics on Targeting reworks,
but this Topic is not those Topics, there im looking how the existing System could be changed to help LRMs,
its my Opinion that a slight Nerf to unassisted indirect fired LRMs for a Buff to LOS LRMs is what they need,

You brought up my knowledge on how the game works and I countered with my tenure in the game to show that I do. Funny, but War Thunder, WoT, and other vehicle FPS do use RNG and cone of fire to make it balanced.

I've given you my opinion and you don't agree with it. It still doesn't change the fact that LRMs are indirect fire weapons and this is how they are in the universe. I'm forgoing TT for this aspect. As you can see in the write up on LRMs they are fired in a ballistic trajectory i.e. up into the air at a 90 degree angle then come down from above ala a cruise missile.

[Tincan Nightmare]

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.

[/color]

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

That tells you that they are fired indirectly not directly.

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those
missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct
line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly
unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is
referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a
target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that
attack would have a better to-hit modifier.
Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are
launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery
Skill. Use the following modifiers:
• Range modifier based on the range between the target
and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
• +1 for indirect fire;
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a
modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no
attacker movement modifier for spotting);
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting
unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists
between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless
of whether partial cover shields the target from either
the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value
groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target
and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location;
see Partial Cover, p. 102.)
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn
that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the
spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM
indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do
not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for
any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot
spot for multiple targets.

That's from page 111 of Total Warfare. Once again here your are making arguments based on TT or lore that you evidently have no idea about. It clearly states that it DOES require a spotter to make an indirect attack, and for that matter, if the firing unit has LOS to a target, it CAN'T make an indirect attack. Not to mention all the penalties that make it far WORSE, than engaging directly. Please stop making posts based on 'lore' since you don't seem to have ever read a TT rulebook or any sourcebook.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those
missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct
line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly
unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is
referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a
target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that
attack would have a better to-hit modifier.
Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are
launched. The base to-hit number is the firing unit’s Gunnery
Skill. Use the following modifiers:
• Range modifier based on the range between the target
and the firing unit, including minimum range modifiers;
• +1 for indirect fire;
• All standard modifiers for target movement;
• All standard modifiers for attacker movement and a
modifier for the spotter’s movement (infantry have no
attacker movement modifier for spotting);
• Terrain modifiers based on line of sight from the spotting
unit; this includes the +1 modifier if partial cover exists
between the spotting unit and the target. (Regardless
of whether partial cover shields the target from either
the spotting unit or the attacking unit, Damage Value
groupings from LRM indirect fire always strike the target
and not the partial cover, even if they hit a leg location;
see Partial Cover, p. 102.)
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn
that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the
spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM
indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do
not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for
any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot
spot for multiple targets.

That's from page 111 of Total Warfare. Once again here your are making arguments based on TT or lore that you evidently have no idea about. It clearly states that it DOES require a spotter to make an indirect attack, and for that matter, if the firing unit has LOS to a target, it CAN'T make an indirect attack. Not to mention all the penalties that make it far WORSE, than engaging directly. Please stop making posts based on 'lore' since you don't seem to have ever read a TT rulebook or any sourcebook.

What did I say? I said that they are launched in a ballistic arc which is indirect whether the mech has LOS or not. It is not a direct fire weapon period and end of story.

You are confusing an indirect attack with the angle of attack of the weapon itself. I noted that even fired at a target in LOS that the weapon leaves the launcher at a ballistic angle i.e. 90 degrees upwards which makes it indirect. Indirect fire is when there is no LOS and that is the specific rule for handling such attacks. It does not alter the fact that LRMs are fired at 90 degree angles into the air then arc down on top of their target.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Don't change LRMs...just allow me to bankshot my lasers/PPCs and ricochet my ballistic shots around corners...

[Dago Red]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

So we differentiate them from MRMs by having them be worse? But no, then only potatoes would use them. Everyone else would know better. Isn't that what we are trying to fix?

Given LRM's inherently better maximum range the fact that MRM's are just LRM's with the tracking modules ripped out to make them cheaper and smaller and therefore shouldn't track at all I'm seeing more of a trade off than straight up inferiority.

If they're anything like TT MRM's should function roughly like higher pellet count LBX's that work out of a missile hardpoint for our purposes. That is of course assuming they don't do something truly bizarre with them here.

Edited by Dago Red, 30 May 2017 - 01:43 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

MRMs fire like SRMs so they are not in competition against LRM, confused this keeps coming up,

What!? Of course they are. They will both be direct fire weapons. Competing for the same missile hardpoints. And MRMs will easily beat them.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

I've given you my opinion and you don't agree with it. It still doesn't change the fact that LRMs are indirect fire weapons and this is how they are in the universe. I'm forgoing TT for this aspect. As you can see in the write up on LRMs they are fired in a ballistic trajectory i.e. up into the air at a 90 degree angle then come down from above ala a cruise missile.

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,

[Savage Wolf]

Dago Red, on 30 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Given LRM's inherently better maximum range the fact that MRM's are just LRM's with the tracking modules ripped out to make them cheaper and smaller and therefore shouldn't track at all I'm seeing more of a trade off than straight up inferiority.

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.

Dago Red, on 30 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

If they're anything like TT MRM's should function roughly like higher pellet count LBX's that work out of a missile hardpoint for our purposes. That is of course assuming they don't do something truly bizarre with them here.

How is that different than LRMs?

[Tincan Nightmare]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

What did I say? I said that they are launched in a ballistic arc which is indirect whether the mech has LOS or not. It is not a direct fire weapon period and end of story.

You are confusing an indirect attack with the angle of attack of the weapon itself. I noted that even fired at a target in LOS that the weapon leaves the launcher at a ballistic angle i.e. 90 degrees upwards which makes it indirect. Indirect fire is when there is no LOS and that is the specific rule for handling such attacks. It does not alter the fact that LRMs are fired at 90 degree angles into the air then arc down on top of their target.

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.

[Andi Nagasia]

Savage Wolf, on 30 May 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

What!? Of course they are. They will both be direct fire weapons. Competing for the same missile hardpoints. And MRMs will easily beat them.

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,