220 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

Wrong. The fact that you think this tells me that you are not a LRM pilot. I can do indirect-fire without another mech spotting for me. They are called UAV's. Furthermore, how many times do I have to say it? LRM's ARE NOT META! They are not meta now, never were before, and never will be. So why try so hard to nerf it and push people to other weapons instead? Bad enough you nerfed it once already and now you want round two? I thought PPC/Gauss and IS laser vomit were the kings of meta and in six weeks we will be getting the Civil War update with dozens of new weapons. So why the push now to nerf a weapon some see as the court jester?

wow you caught me, not bringing up one time use consumables, i guess your right im not a LRM pilot,
ok Jokes aside yes you can technically get locks from UAV but their range is only 240m(336m with Quirks),
that means unless the target is hidden behind cover 120m(168m with Quirks) inorder to get use out of it,

no LRMs are not Meta, and this is not a Nerf LRM topic,
what im Proposing is it Buff LOS-LRMs, Artemis, TAG, NARC, & LRM-Velocity,
and only advocating a nerf to Indirect Fire +15% spread for LRM15/20s,
so buffing 5LRM things at the Cost of 1LRM thing,

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

No, you've avoided it and you kept moving goal posts like you just did here.

ive said i would update the Topic as i got peoples Opinions, which i have been doing,
this isnt moving the Goal Post this a Compromise, im not doing anything shady i said i was gonna do this,

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

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.

I would increase their speed up to 277 meters per second once they achieve 100-200 meter altitude and come down. The only way to buff direct fire is with the use of TAG/Narc/Artemis.

Direct Fire Mode: LRM spread is larger then indirect fire mode and can't go around intervening terrain.

Indirect fire: Ignores intervening terrain, except for caves and other rock formations that cover the top of the enemy mech. Spread is tighter due to the missiles' guidance system being able to compensate for them.

Locks are not mandatory for indirect fire mode since these are guided munitions, but they are needed for direct fire mode.

Now care to answer this counter proposal that brings LRMs to parity with direct fire weapons without moving the goal posts or splitting hairs over what is and isn't direct fire mode that contradicts BT and real world definitions?

Sorry didnt get back to this idea till just now, didnt notice it, thanks for quoting your self,

its an intresting idea, i still feel this needs to be its own Topic though,
as so we dont clutter this topic with cross conversation(Talking about My Idea & yours),
-
so Direct Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright? like SRMs but with Homing?
you would need a lock onto a Target to fire(so the removal of Dumb Fire Feature?)
&
Indirect Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright Up? like near 90* going up and comming down?
to avoid turrain as noted? ok i can see how that could work but i can also see LRMs becoming too strong with this,
but could you explain how you wouldnt need locks to fire on a target? or you dont need to hold locks?

its an interesting Idea, and it very much Deserves to have its own Topic,
i would love to continue this Conversation on this Idea in the Topic you make about it,

[sycocys]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

personally i like the Arc, the way i play LRMs i fire them over my Team mates at the Front,
always staying with in 300m of the front lines helps me mobilize and keeps me safe if i get targeted,
also the +50% Velocity i feel would help LRMs more then much of the Spread Tweaking,

Arc doesn't need to be a linear grade, and probably shouldn't be for that matter.

I don't care for the velocity buff, it just makes them the same as everything else then, plus they are guided missiles - guidance is changeable feature, you can't re-pack more boost into your missiles while they are loaded into the tubes.

Could "maybe" force them to use more boost out of the tube electronically, but that should come with a caveat like reduced range/shake/damage. I'm a big supporter of buffs having a cost somewhere to specialize weapons/roles.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

wow you caught me, not bringing up one time use consumables, i guess your right im not a LRM pilot,
ok Jokes aside yes you can technically get locks from UAV but their range is only 240m(336m with Quirks),
that means unless the target is hidden behind cover 120m(168m with Quirks) inorder to get use out of it,

no LRMs are not Meta, and this is not a Nerf LRM topic,
what im Proposing is it Buff LOS-LRMs, Artemis, TAG, NARC, & LRM-Velocity,
and only advocating a nerf to Indirect Fire +15% spread for LRM15/20s,
so buffing 5LRM things at the Cost of 1LRM thing,

I have seen a single well-placed UAV determine the outcome of a battle many times and are best for getting and maintaining locks since most people still cannot find their "R" key.

Buff 5/nerf 1? Pass. Try that with PPC/Gauss and IS laser vomit instead. They actually ARE meta.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 31 May 2017 - 01:07 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

I have seen a single well-placed UAV determine the outcome of a battle many times and are best for getting and maintaining locks.

but was that single well-placed UAV deployed by an LRM mech?
if not then you still need another mech to make LRMs work well,

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 10:17 AM, said:

wow you caught me, not bringing up one time use consumables, i guess your right im not a LRM pilot,
ok Jokes aside yes you can technically get locks from UAV but their range is only 240m(336m with Quirks),
that means unless the target is hidden behind cover 120m(168m with Quirks) inorder to get use out of it,

no LRMs are not Meta, and this is not a Nerf LRM topic,
what im Proposing is it Buff LOS-LRMs, Artemis, TAG, NARC, & LRM-Velocity,
and only advocating a nerf to Indirect Fire +15% spread for LRM15/20s,
so buffing 5LRM things at the Cost of 1LRM thing,




ive said i would update the Topic as i got peoples Opinions, which i have been doing,
this isnt moving the Goal Post this a Compromise, im not doing anything shady i said i was gonna do this,


Sorry didnt get back to this idea till just now, didnt notice it, thanks for quoting your self,

its an intresting idea, i still feel this needs to be its own Topic though,
as so we dont clutter this topic with cross conversation(Talking about My Idea & yours),
-
so Direct Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright? like SRMs but with Homing?
you would need a lock onto a Target to fire(so the removal of Dumb Fire Feature?)
&
Indirect Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright Up? like near 90* going up and comming down?
to avoid turrain as noted? ok i can see how that could work but i can also see LRMs becoming too strong with this,
but could you explain how you wouldnt need locks to fire on a target? or you dont need to hold locks?

its an interesting Idea, and it very much Deserves to have its own Topic,
i would love to continue this Conversation on this Idea in the Topic you make about it,

I did make it as its own topic yesterday and it got ignored. We can talk there if you want.

EDIT: Link to a new thread about this. https://mwomercs.com...thats-balanced/

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 31 May 2017 - 01:42 PM.

[Rogue Jedi]

In theory I am OK with this but there needs to be something put into place to allow the values to be modified if (as I expect) this makes LRMs majorly overpowered, LRMs used with line of sight from 200-400m are not bad right now, especialy when supported, with TAG and NARC or Artemus,

my sugestion, if this will not be a lot of work for PGI to implement would be to put it on PTS, have people test it, with incentives to spend time on PTS, e.g. 200k cbills per game played on the PTS with additional bonuses earned for each time you take LRMs to a match and take a Mech without LRMs ^{(e.g. 100 matches in an LRM boat and 3 matches not taking LRMs means you get 3 bonuses + the 20,600,0000 cbills for 23 matches played)}., and you do not recieve the payout unless you put feedback in the PTS feedback thread before a deadline.

This would allow PGI to have a good estimate for how good the new LRMs are so they can estimate reasionable values ahead of time, but they would also need a way to modify the base LRM speed on live without taking down the servers for a patch when it is discovered they gave LRMs the wrong values.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

but was that single well-placed UAV deployed by an LRM mech?
if not then you still need another mech to make LRMs work well,

I have done exactly that with my LRM mechs many times and it works well.

Also, still say no. Since you guys are not going to give LRM's their range back, just leave them as they are. Besides, you mentioned before about wanting them to keep their uniqueness but after ATM's come out, I understand that they can only be used if they have line of sight, which is apparently what you are trying to steer LRM's towards. So I ask you, where is the "uniqueness" in that? Sounds more like some watered down clone to me.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

I have done exactly that with my LRM mechs many times and it works well.

well if it works for you go ahead, im just saying that launching a UAV you would have to back up,
as 120m(168m with Quirks) is still under the 180 LRM mim Range, so you would have to Drop a UAV and Run,

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

Also, still say no. Since you guys are not going to give LRM's their range back,

you guys? um im not PGI, you know this right, im just a Volunteer Moderator,
and you can easily get LRMs to over 1000m with the weapon tree,

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

well if it works for you go ahead, im just saying that launching a UAV you would have to back up,
as 120m(168m with Quirks) is still under the 180 LRM mim Range, so you would have to Drop a UAV and Run,


you guys? um im not PGI, you know this right, im just a Volunteer Moderator,
and you can easily get LRMs to over 1000m with the weapon tree,

I saw someone this weekend with 1100 and change on for their range on LRMs. Thank goodness he wasn't firing from that far out though.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

well if it works for you go ahead, im just saying that launching a UAV you would have to back up,
as 120m(168m with Quirks) is still under the 180 LRM mim Range, so you would have to Drop a UAV and Run,


you guys? um im not PGI, you know this right, im just a Volunteer Moderator,
and you can easily get LRMs to over 1000m with the weapon tree,

That is what I do. If the enemy is advancing on me then I pop some red smoke to cover my retreat then a UAV and let the enemy walk right under it as I turn around and let it rain. Steel rain steel pain. That is part of how I can get 1200+ damage in pub matches with my LRM boats.

I know. You still work for PGI though and as my Drill Instructors taught us: collective responsibility.

I always used Range mods on my LRM boats to get them to 1100. Came in really handy against enemy snipers (PPC, Gauss, etc). So with the latest patch I lost a good 65 meters of range. Might not seem like much to you, but having watched helpless as they all self-detonated when they reached their range limit no more than 10-20 meters right in front of their target that was slowly backing away immediately after the last patch hit... Things like that tend to stick with people.

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

I saw someone this weekend with 1100 and change on for their range on LRMs. Thank goodness he wasn't firing from that far out though.

1100? How can that be? No one can get their missiles to that range anymore. Unless it was yet another new free IS quirk.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 01 June 2017 - 04:15 AM.

[Ruar]

Stalker has 10% missile range on it.

[adamts01]

LRMs need to stay indirect fire, as they'll never compete with LOS weapons due to lock and travel time. My proposal has always been to increase lethality through the roof, but severely limit ammo per ton, maybe 40 missiles or so. This keeps LRMers from spamming missiles, which is what people hate, and makes them work with trusted spotters or get their own lock and save their missiles for a good shot. If you take all that direct fire from getting and holding a lock, your dual LRM20s should cripple the target right back.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Stalker has 10% missile range on it.

That explains it. More free IS quirks. And some people still have the nerve to claim that Clans are OP. Since the Stalker can (apparently) get up to 1125 (+25%) on LRM range. That means it can outrange ANY Clan LRM mech.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 31 May 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

That explains it. More free IS quirks. And some people still have the nerve to claim that Clans are OP. Since the Stalker can (apparently) get up to 1125 (+25%) on LRM range. That means it can outrange ANY Clan LRM mech.

Well, you pretty much invalidated any of the points you try to make by asserting that clans are not OP. A dev just did a post talking about the fact clan mechs have an 6 or 8% higher win rate than IS mechs.

Then again, when you are biased towards something it's really easy to ignore the facts and data.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 07:11 PM, said:

Well, you pretty much invalidated any of the points you try to make by asserting that clans are not OP. A dev just did a post talking about the fact clan mechs have an 6 or 8% higher win rate than IS mechs.

Then again, when you are biased towards something it's really easy to ignore the facts and data.

No need to talk about yourself. If you mean the Tukayyid stats, I seem to recall that many if not most of the top overall scoring units were merc units (some of the biggest and highest rated ones at that) that just happened to be contracted to the Clans when PGI dropped it on us out of nowhere and I know, teamwork really is OP too.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 31 May 2017 - 07:19 PM.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 31 May 2017 - 07:18 PM, said:

No need to talk about yourself. If you mean the Tukayyid stats, I seem to recall that many if not most of the top overall scoring units were merc units (some of the biggest and highest rated ones at that) that just happened to be contracted to the Clans when PGI dropped it on us out of nowhere and I know, teamwork really is OP too.

Nope, talking about the post skill tree assessment.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Nope, talking about the post skill tree assessment.

No, you are talking about about something different now (first win stats and then skill tree). So make up your mind.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 01 June 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

No, you are talking about about something different now (first win stats and then skill tree). So make up your mind.

I haven't switched at all.

https://mwomercs.com...l-tree-balance/

• Inner Sphere to Clan balance in Win / Loss ratios between 'Mechs is the closest it has ever been within the game. With a global average performance difference of 6% between the factions. With the widest individual performance difference between 'Mech chassis' being 8%. While these numbers are the best that I have observed while part of the team, we are still of the opinion that these can be improved further. More on that below.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 01 June 2017 - 05:21 AM, said:

I haven't switched at all.

https://mwomercs.com...l-tree-balance/

• Inner Sphere to Clan balance in Win / Loss ratios between 'Mechs is the closest it has ever been within the game. With a global average performance difference of 6% between the factions. With the widest individual performance difference between 'Mech chassis' being 8%. While these numbers are the best that I have observed while part of the team, we are still of the opinion that these can be improved further. More on that below.

That is PGI's personal assessment and we all know how competent they are (they still cannot fix my unit's MOTD after close to 3 months and several emails).

So what would you suggest? More free quirks for IS to make them as good if not better than our mechs that we have to pay 2-5 times more to get? Make no mistake, the real problem here is PGI's idea of "balance" more than anything else. If they gave the Clans our tech back and simply redid the numbers in FW to match the number balance from the TT (12 IS vs 10 Clan), then these things would not even be an issue.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 01 June 2017 - 06:31 AM, said:

So what would you suggest? More free quirks for IS to make them as good if not better than our mechs that we have to pay 2-5 times more to get? Make no mistake, the real problem here is PGI's idea of "balance" more than anything else. If they gave the Clans our tech back and simply redid the numbers in FW to match the number balance from the TT (12 IS vs 10 Clan), then these things would not even be an issue.

12v10 wouldnt fix anything, ant this point it would break balance more than it would fix it,
also that 6% difference(53%) between IS and Clan, which isnt much at all, its not perfect but its very good,
id be willing to say you will find more imbalance in ISvIS & ClanvClan, Chassis to Chassis balance,

But again we are getting of topic,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 01 June 2017 - 06:40 AM.