10 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

as it is both LRMs and ATMs have 160m/s Velocity,
making both tied for the Slowest Velocity weapons im MWO,

though this 160m/s Velocity is ok at closer Ranges,
for longer ranges the low Velocity makes them Unreliable,
sadly this makes both effectiveness drop drastically over range.

now as both weapons are designed to fire over longer distances i feel Buff is in order,
in this case it can be done, i feel, in 2 ways Static Increase, or Missile Acceleration,


as a Static Buff increasing the Velocity to 240m would do alot to help these Systems,
allowing them to be more reliable to at longer distances, and so help them at range,

the Second Idea actually comes from Navid A1,

Navid A1, on 17 March 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

in this they would still be the same at close Range, but would accelerate over their Range,

Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 03 July 2017 - 02:16 PM.

[Ruar]

No. Because of the potential for them to be OP. The locking mechanic of the LRMs and ATMs makes it almost impossible to buff them because they can home on their target. That is why there are so many counters for them.

LRMs need to be reworked from the perspective of how they get from launcher to target. Then you can talk about velocity increases. ATMs also have to be included in that conversation since they also home.

If I had my way LRMs would get increased velocity but would have two firing modes. In the first mode they fly directly to the target similar to how ATMs travel but they have no homing mechanic but get 550 or so velocity. In indirect fire mode they have 300 velocity, take the current high arc, but home to the ground where the mech was standing when the LRM was fired. Indirect fire mode would also have a large spread to make it an area weapon instead of pinpoint.

ATMs would keep their low velocity, their ability to do different damage at different ranges, and would have their flight path arc a bit higher. The minimum range would stay with 3 damage in close or it could be reduce/removed if the in close damage drops to 2.3-2.5 or so.

This would make a distinct difference between the different missile systems.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

No. Because of the potential for them to be OP. The locking mechanic of the LRMs and ATMs makes it almost impossible to buff them because they can home on their target. That is why there are so many counters for them.

but their ability to lock on is also a penalty as much as it is a buff,
yes they track the target as long as you hold lock, but their spread if locked as well,
which means no matter how you play all LRM20s will have 5.2 Spread, nothing can change that,
ya you can Add Artemis, but that comes with Costs as well,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

LRMs need to be reworked from the perspective of how they get from launcher to target. Then you can talk about velocity increases. ATMs also have to be included in that conversation since they also home.

agreed, but remember Spread is a huge balancing tool what it comes to LRMs / ATMs,
it can always be changed to reign them in if they get out of hand,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

If I had my way LRMs would get increased velocity but would have two firing modes. In the first mode they fly directly to the target similar to how ATMs travel but they have no homing mechanic but get 550 or so velocity. In indirect fire mode they have 300 velocity, take the current high arc, but home to the ground where the mech was standing when the LRM was fired. Indirect fire mode would also have a large spread to make it an area weapon instead of pinpoint.

well as an Area weapon they wouldnt have much use at long range unless they did damage differently,
or no one would use them in Indirect fire mode, which should be a viable choice just as much as Directfire,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

ATMs would keep their low velocity, their ability to do different damage at different ranges, and would have their flight path arc a bit higher. The minimum range would stay with 3 damage in close or it could be reduce/removed if the in close damage drops to 2.3-2.5 or so.

ATMs Low Ammo / Tube Counts / Missile Health lead them to be Extreamly weak vs AMS,
as well as useless as a Long Range weapon, which if we are mixing Ammo Types they should still be,
they should be viable when using their 1Damage 1100m range, which a 160m velocity cant do,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

This would make a distinct difference between the different missile systems.

perhaps, but i still feel velocity should be 240m or more, if for nothing else then the Viability of both,
the Current velocity makes both useless above 500m, unless your Target isnt paying attention,

[Ruar]

LRM spread is less than MRM spread, and MRMs seem just fine. I honestly don't know how you can say LRMs spread too much. My experience both shooting them and being hit by them tells me the spread is fine. There is a finite limit to how much spread can be a balancing factor because the missiles home. If I launch and LRM15 at a target I can expect all 15 missiles to hit barring any attempts to neutralize LRMs. Which is why there are multiple methods of neutralizing LRMs.

LRMs in indirect fire mode doing area damage should be a niche and not used often. Indirect fire is not needed tactically in the game, it pushes new players away, it creates horrible habits in LRM users, and simply bogs the matches down. That said I realize it's part of lore and it should happen, but it should be a rarely used fire mode.

If the issue with ATMs is they are weak then the answer is to increase their health, not make them travel faster. If someone wants to shoot them at 1100m then so be it, they should be very weak and prone to missing. The same as every other 1k+ range weapon in the game. ATMs shouldn't get some kind of magical boost because they are a new missile system.

The IS doesn't have a viable missile system past 500m unless your target isn't paying attention, why should the clans?

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

LRM spread is less than MRM spread, and MRMs seem just fine. I honestly don't know how you can say LRMs spread too much. My experience both shooting them and being hit by them tells me the spread is fine. There is a finite limit to how much spread can be a balancing factor because the missiles home.

well lets look at that, first MRM are Aimed weapons they do have a Lock on spread,
which means you can get close and such decrease your spread(they are amazing in under 200m)

also yes they do have greater Spread but also other stats help them as well,

Quote

=LRM to MRM Comparison=
LRM20....5Crits, 10Tons, 5.2Spread, 180-900 Range, 160m Velocity,
MRM30...5Crits, 10Tons, 6.4Spread, 0-450 Range, 400m Velocity,
becomes much less effective vs ECM Systems,

the MRM has 23% more Spread, but 50% more Damage,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

If I launch and LRM15 at a target I can expect all 15 missiles to hit barring any attempts to neutralize LRMs. Which is why there are multiple methods of neutralizing LRMs.

um what? ive tested LRM15-20 in training ground and lost 1-2 missiles not hitting the target,
in this case the Target wasnt moving, with a moving target you usually lose 1-4 into the ground,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

LRMs in indirect fire mode doing area damage should be a niche and not used often. Indirect fire is not needed tactically in the game, it pushes new players away, it creates horrible habits in LRM users, and simply bogs the matches down. That said I realize it's part of lore and it should happen, but it should be a rarely used fire mode.

LRMs are shown to have and use both Fire types just as often as each other, so both should be viable,
and as such should be used just as often, which is how LRMs are described in Lore and how they work TT,
-
you seem to be advocating your duel fire mode idea, which i think would be cool,
but it really deserves its own topic, this one is more just about ATM & LRM velocity,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

If the issue with ATMs is they are weak then the answer is to increase their health, not make them travel faster. If someone wants to shoot them at 1100m then so be it, they should be very weak and prone to missing. The same as every other 1k+ range weapon in the game. ATMs shouldn't get some kind of magical boost because they are a new missile system.

which is why im advocating this change to bother LRMs and ATMs, to help both at Range,
not to just help ATMs because their a new toy we get to play with,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

The IS doesn't have a viable missile system past 500m unless your target isn't paying attention, why should the clans?

though i would say no Missile system is really Good past 500m in MWO,
IS LRMs are better than C-LRMs from my experience, and with a Spotter IS-LRM40 can be Brutal past 500m,
though this usually requires a Spotter, and a LRM boat to work on the same page when it works its amazing,

[Ruar]

Your kind of twisting things around to fit your narrative. MRM spread is fine for a dumbfire weapon but LRM spread is bad on a homing weapon. And from what I saw on test MRMs hit their full spread pretty close to instantly. Up close or at 400m didn't make much difference in how much the MRMs were spreading. The main difference is I don't have to guess lead as much at 200m as I do at 400m on moving targets.

As for damage... Homing verses dumbfire. Are you really trying to say a homing missile misses more than a dumbfire weapon? A dumbfire weapon with bigger spread. You're better than this.

I know how they are described in lore and TT, but that doesn't translate to MWO. Homing is a massive problem and has spawned countless threads about how much LRMs both suck to use and suck to be on the receiving end. Scrap the homing system and LRMs will actually be able to be fixed.

And yeah, I brought up my preferred change because you want to boost velocity on a broken weapon. That's not even really a band aid. LRMs need to die and be fixed from the ground up, not be thrown a few motrin and told to drink water.

Please don't lump LRMs and ATMs. If you want them to be considered unique weapons then they need to be treated uniquely. What is good for one is not good for the other.

And your LRM40 anecdote is just dodging what is said. Why should ATMs be made so good they fill a void between 500-1000m while the IS get no such weapon? Why should ATMs be made into effective weapons while LRMs get left behind?

The problem with ATMs is they are capable of filling three different roles and if they aren't made weak in all three roles then there is no need to take any of the other weapons. If ATMS are good in close and can do ranged damage why would anyone want SRMS? If ATMs can do some in close damage and are good at long range why would anyone take LRMs?

ATMS should be like the cooler older brother of the MRM. Good at medium range but they can ramp it up a bit in close or have some influence at range. In the end though they should be best at medium ranges. That's what we currently have but all these "remove minimum range, boost ATM at long range" threads are probably going to end up with ATMs being the only weapon used by the clan pilots because they get made better than SRMs and LRMs.

Edited by Ruar, 03 July 2017 - 01:59 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Your kind of twisting things around to fit your narrative. MRM spread is fine for a dumbfire weapon but LRM spread is bad on a homing weapon. And from what I saw on test MRMs hit their full spread pretty close to instantly. Up close or at 400m didn't make much difference in how much the MRMs were spreading. The main difference is I don't have to guess lead as much at 200m as I do at 400m on moving targets.

ok ill stop you right there, i only and giving you things ive experienced from playing,
im not bending or twisting things to Fit my narrative, thats not what i do, and it isnt conducive to game balance,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

As for damage... Homing verses dumbfire. Are you really trying to say a homing missile misses more than a dumbfire weapon? A dumbfire weapon with bigger spread. You're better than this.

ive had alot of fun with MRMs and i dont think they are in a bad place,
but i gave you the math on how they compare +23% Spread for +50% Damage, take what you will,
but i can tell you ive had much better games(Damage wise) with MRMs, and had more fun using them then LRMs,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

I know how they are described in lore and TT, but that doesn't translate to MWO. Homing is a massive problem and has spawned countless threads about how much LRMs both suck to use and suck to be on the receiving end. Scrap the homing system and LRMs will actually be able to be fixed.

And yeah, I brought up my preferred change because you want to boost velocity on a broken weapon. That's not even really a band aid. LRMs need to die and be fixed from the ground up, not be thrown a few motrin and told to drink water.

this really need to be its own topic, an LRM Rework Topic, as many feel they should be reworked,
but as it is right now im trying to find solutions using the system we have currently, rather than make it anew,
do they need a rework, yes i think they do, but im not advocating such in this topic,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Please don't lump LRMs and ATMs. If you want them to be considered unique weapons then they need to be treated uniquely. What is good for one is not good for the other.

well as both are very very similar i can say it would be,
i think LRMs need a Velocity buff, and to have better velocity they would be more reliable at longer Ranges,
i think ATMs need a Velocity buff, and to have better velocity they would be more reliable at longer Ranges,
my Thoughts on LRMs existed before this PTS, and as i feel the same about ATMs why not look at both?

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

And your LRM40 anecdote is just dodging what is said. Why should ATMs be made so good they fill a void between 500-1000m while the IS get no such weapon? Why should ATMs be made into effective weapons while LRMs get left behind?

because a 9Damage @500-1100m wont make C-LRMs less useful, and as such it wont change IS-LRMs place ether,
But increasing LRMs Velocity will make LRMs more Reliable/Viable 500-900m which does help IS-LRMs,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

The problem with ATMs is they are capable of filling three different roles and if they aren't made weak in all three roles then there is no need to take any of the other weapons. If ATMS are good in close and can do ranged damage why would anyone want SRMS? If ATMs can do some in close damage and are good at long range why would anyone take LRMs?

im not asking for them to be the best in all 3 Roles because they really shouldnt,
but right now that 1100m Range is a Joke, no one will use ATMs past 450, thats just how it is right now,

Ruar, on 03 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

ATMS should be like the cooler older brother of the MRM. Good at medium range but they can ramp it up a bit in close or have some influence at range. In the end though they should be best at medium ranges. That's what we currently have but all these "remove minimum range, boost ATM at long range" threads are probably going to end up with ATMs being the only weapon used by the clan pilots because they get made better than SRMs and LRMs.

i agree, but my Velocity increase is targeted at both LRMs and ATMs for this reason,
if ATMS are currently weaker than LRMs past 360, than a Velocity increase to both wont change that,
all it will do is increase the Viability of Both ATMs and LRMs at longer Ranges, which i feel is a good thing,

[davoodoo]

Yea i guess, i would propose at least 300 velocity for atms and 200 for lurms. Still nothing compared to 400 of srm.

[Reno Blade]

I would prefere launchers with double velocity and double cooldown.
Better performance, but less annoying spam and less dangerous dps.

Overall LRMs (and ATMs) could have a cooldown between 5-7sec and a velocity around 220-250.

[Andi Nagasia]

Reno Blade, on 05 July 2017 - 08:14 AM, said:

I would prefere launchers with double velocity and double cooldown.
Better performance, but less annoying spam and less dangerous dps.

Overall LRMs (and ATMs) could have a cooldown between 5-7sec and a velocity around 220-250.

i could support this, Launchers having longer cooldowns but being Faster(more Reliable)

[MischiefSC]

Not a fan if spread change, However the flat trajectory of ATMs has me in favor of a velocity increase while reducing their max range to 810m.

So my ideal ATM setup would be damage scaling from 1 at 0m to 2.7 at 180m, 2.7 from 180 to 270m, then 2.7 to 0 at 810m. Velocity about 240, flat trajectory like they have now but perhaps a bit less nimble of flight adjustment and health like SRMs.