279 replies to this topic

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 11 August 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

Define "effective", then. For LRMs, even. I'm really curious.

As for easiest, I'd have to put it for the ERLL. I had someone going for their 12-assist game, they popped in with the stereotypical ERLL ECM Raven and managed 12 assists with under 50 damage. No ECM prevented it from lockons, no AMS could stop the tickle lasers, and it was so fast he literally managed three assists in one ERLL burn at one point. Just wiggling a crosshair across the giant robots.

Obviously, not effective damage (although he could certainly do it in that thing, as I saw later), but very, very easy and effectively uncounterable.

I personally don't think LRMs can ever be effective due to the spread nature. 600 damage in an LRM boat is not as effective as 300 damage in a laser boat that is picking it's shots. Yes, you can have a laser/ballistic/PPC pilot who doesn't do effective damage because they spread it all over the place, but that is the pilot not the weapon. A skilled pilot running LRMs will never be as effective as the same skilled pilot in a laser build. An unskilled pilot running LRMs will be just as crappy as an unskilled pilot in a laser build.

The closest LRMs can get to effective is when they are pummeling somebody who is not able to get into cover and break the incoming fire. At least then are doing damage to someone while not getting hit in return. That's the best you can hope for and it's the reason why there are so many counters. I guess you could say it's a case of quantity becoming a quality on it's own.

While it's easy to do some damage with an ERLL build it's not as easy to do effective damage with that build. When it comes to skill though the ERLL requires more than LRMs simply based on aiming requirements if nothing else. LRMs simply hover in the area while the ERLL user needs to do their best to apply the damage to one spot. I realize that is a small nuance, but IMO it's enough to say ERLLs require more skill.

[Brain Cancer]

Ruar, on 11 August 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

I personally don't think LRMs can ever be effective due to the spread nature. 600 damage in an LRM boat is not as effective as 300 damage in a laser boat that is picking it's shots. Yes, you can have a laser/ballistic/PPC pilot who doesn't do effective damage because they spread it all over the place, but that is the pilot not the weapon. A skilled pilot running LRMs will never be as effective as the same skilled pilot in a laser build. An unskilled pilot running LRMs will be just as crappy as an unskilled pilot in a laser build.
The closest LRMs can get to effective is when they are pummeling somebody who is not able to get into cover and break the incoming fire. At least then are doing damage to someone while not getting hit in return. That's the best you can hope for and it's the reason why there are so many counters. I guess you could say it's a case of quantity becoming a quality on it's own.

While it's easy to do some damage with an ERLL build it's not as easy to do effective damage with that build. When it comes to skill though the ERLL requires more than LRMs simply based on aiming requirements if nothing else. LRMs simply hover in the area while the ERLL user needs to do their best to apply the damage to one spot. I realize that is a small nuance, but IMO it's enough to say ERLLs require more skill.

Very good, although I'd say it as "skill can push those ERLLs to a higher plateau than LRMs."

Now, here's the killer question.

Given all these flaws and counters, why, if at all, are LRMs considered balanced against other weapons? Why is an ineffective weapon left ineffective?

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 11 August 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Very good, although I'd say it as "skill can push those ERLLs to a higher plateau than LRMs."

Now, here's the killer question.

Given all these flaws and counters, why, if at all, are LRMs considered balanced against other weapons? Why is an ineffective weapon left ineffective?

Easy. Because a homing indirect fire weapon has to be severely limited or it will be the only weapon used. While the required skill to use such a weapon is relatively low it can be overpowering given the right circumstances. Remove radar dep, ams, add velocity, and everyone would be packing LRM'S.

Wot is the easiest example of the problems caused by strong indirect fire. Add homing to the mix and it can get out of control. Which is why we have so many counters for the weapon requiring the least amount of Skill to use.

Which is also why I feel the only way to improve LRM'S to be competitive with other weapons is to make them non-homing direct fire weapons with limited indirect ability.

Edit- I'm not sure I would say LRMS are balanced with other weapons. I say this because LRMS can be very weak due to counters and smart play, but then they can be OP in a few circumstances. That's not really balance. It's more like begrudging acceptance simply because so many seem fixated on having a potentially powerful indirect weapon even if it isn't needed and has to be mostly gimped to prevent overuse.

Edited by Ruar, 11 August 2017 - 07:03 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

Brain Cancer, on 11 August 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Given all these flaws and counters, why, if at all, are LRMs considered balanced against other weapons? Why is an ineffective weapon left ineffective?

nature of the beast.

pgi designed lurms to have an extremely low skill floor. the easiest, most ham-fisted, graceful-as-an-axe-murder way to "balance" it would be to severely limit its effectiveness.

they've kinda painted themselves into a corner with lurms because any increase in effectiveness will cause a disproportionate increase in power against potatoes and new players who haven't figured out the numerous hard counters to it in-game. and as we all know, pgi has a "balance by potato" policy.

to make lurms even vaguely TRULY useful, missile speed and health need to enormously increase for a start. but that won't happen.

[Brain Cancer]

Ruar, on 11 August 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

Easy. Because a homing indirect fire weapon has to be severely limited or it will be the only weapon used. While the required skill to use such a weapon is relatively low it can be overpowering given the right circumstances. Remove radar dep, ams, add velocity, and everyone would be packing LRM'S.

Why would they remove those counters? As it stands, LRMs are considered so weak the vast majority of players don't even use the most common ones, as they require increasingly disproportionate efforts on the missile boat's part to hit people who recognize basic cover, never mind "AMS kills the missiles".

Quote

Wot is the easiest example of the problems caused by strong indirect fire. Add homing to the mix and it can get out of control. Which is why we have so many counters for the weapon requiring the least amount of Skill to use.

The weapon type that also delivers the weakest damage type in the game, especially and specifically in indirect fire mode is the LRM. Which also gets to be the only weapon type that has multiple counters built in, before taking simple cover into account.

Quote

Which is also why I feel the only way to improve LRM'S to be competitive with other weapons is to make them non-homing direct fire weapons with limited indirect ability.

I'm curious as to how you'd make a straight firing non-guided missile compete with the SRM and MRM, considering. Or the LB-X.

Quote

Edit- I'm not sure I would say LRMS are balanced with other weapons. I say this because LRMS can be very weak due to counters and smart play, but then they can be OP in a few circumstances. That's not really balance. It's more like begrudging acceptance simply because so many seem fixated on having a potentially powerful indirect weapon even if it isn't needed and has to be mostly gimped to prevent overuse.

I mean, we're talking a weapon that can be "OP" if you literally decide not to take LRM counters and happen to be on a map where you don't get to walk behind a rock and laugh at the rain. On a Tuesday. A weapon with lots of easily had counters that rarely see common use because the weapon is considered so weak by experienced players, why would you bother?

"It's OP if you're stupid and do nothing to stop it", basically. Otherwise, it takes unholy levels of effort to even be mediocre. Now, I've seen WoT artillery. That stuff hit like a rear-armor (or in this case, top-armor) seeking dual AC/20. LRMs, other than when bugged, have nowhere near the potency of such a weapon.

Wil McCullough, on 11 August 2017 - 07:14 PM, said:

they've kinda painted themselves into a corner with lurms because any increase in effectiveness will cause a disproportionate increase in power against potatoes and new players who haven't figured out the numerous hard counters to it in-game. and as we all know, pgi has a "balance by potato" policy.

Considering right now it's an amazing(ly painful) match that I see more than one AMS-equipped opponent, yeah.

Quote

to make lurms even vaguely TRULY useful, missile speed and health need to enormously increase for a start. but that won't happen.

Velocity effectively increases missile health, while actual missile health is probably what ATM's need more than the LRM. And yes, considering people were horrified about LRMs having a velocity any intelligent missile boater now skill nodes them to being the end of the world, we're likely stuck with "balance by potato".

Of course, gawds help us if they applied that to all weapons. We'd be flashlightvomiting people while using Ultrafoamball/20's to hurt the other guy's feelings, if they were balanced to the same standards as LRMs.

[Thorqemada]

And not a single time yet it is mentioned that the true Problems preventing LRMs from being balanced be the fact that:

PGI did decide not to use Seized Hardpoints
PGI did decide to let the Players store Almost Unlimited Ammunition Stockpiles (regarding to typical match length)
PGI balanced LURM to do ineffective and little damage
PGI forces LURM-Players into cover bcs they cant compete Direct Fire Weapons
PGI forces that way LURM Players to boat freaknumbers of Missiletubes
PGI forces LURM-Players to spam Missiles as much as possible to have any Impact on the game
Player Psychology makes many LURM-Targets Freak Out crying "more Counters", "Nerf That Lowskill Underhive Weapon!"
LURM-Players are forced to cover, boat and spam MORE!
Understanding of this vicious cylce is pretty much subzero...

Edited by Thorqemada, 11 August 2017 - 10:33 PM.

[L0stA1m]

Thorqemada, on 11 August 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

And not a single time yet it is mentioned that the true Problems preventing LRMs from being balanced be the fact that:

PGI did decide not to use Seized Hardpoints
PGI did decide to let the Players store Almost Unlimited Ammunition Stockpiles (regarding to typical match length)
PGI balanced LURM to do ineffective and little damage
PGI forces LURM-Players into cover bcs they cant compete Direct Fire Weapons
PGI forces that way LURM Players to boat freaknumbers of Missiletubes
PGI forces LURM-Players to spam Missiles as much as possible to have any Impact on the game
Player Psychology makes many LURM-Targets Freak Out crying "more Counters", "Nerf That Lowskill Underhive Weapon!"
LURM-Players are forced to cover, boat and spam MORE!
Understanding of this vicious cylce is pretty much subzero...

Or just use real weapons. Autoaim sucks in a FPS. It's like the smart gun in Titanfall. A mechanic for sh1ttier players. LRM the noobtube of MWO.

Edited by L0stA1m, 12 August 2017 - 01:33 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Probably somebody already said this, but whatever:

1. His enemied played terribly. Half the team on open ground failed to shoot down an uav above them while being pounded with an unending steam of LRMs? It seems like tier 5 environment, where LRMs do seem OP at times.
2. He had pretty good positioning and map knowledge, you need brain for positioning, not hands. Also his team moved in a way that protected his position, while he had no backup weapons. 1 mech coming close would rip him apart. Any mech.
3. LRMs (and ATMs) have that thing I like to call useless bonus damage. Damage numbers are inflated, because you shoot arms and legs and torsos at once, while the only some of it contributes to the kill. Ergo, your damage in an LRM/ATM boat does not represent your actual contribution to kills/victory. I would say he did about 450 usefull damage, maybe less, against totally clueless enemies that assisted him with their own inability to protect themselves.

[Shifty McSwift]

L0stA1m, on 11 August 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

LRM the noobtube of MWO.

Yeah but meh? As I said earlier one of the weapons is going to get that badge, they always do. Remove LRMs, and what takes its place? ERLL? Nerf those and then what ERPPC? There will always be people making fun of/insulting the "easymode" players, but the fact is there exists in the world, MASSIVE skill gaps, if you want more players to stick around, cater to more skill levels, this is nothing new or weird at all.

For me the problem comes in at the score, where an LRM boat who is barely even trying and using a potato to guide his mouse can make many other/all other weapon systems, look like they deal ****-damage, and mostly make those other players feel silly for not just taking LRMs and using their teammates as fodder, while they score harvest... Well to me that's a problem of sorts, but again, one I live with, and that doesn't largely impact me personally in play, just in the theoretics.

[Alexander of Macedon]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 11 August 2017 - 10:58 PM, said:

Probably somebody already said this, but whatever:

1. His enemied played terribly. Half the team on open ground failed to shoot down an uav above them while being pounded with an unending steam of LRMs? It seems like tier 5 environment, where LRMs do seem OP at times.
2. He had pretty good positioning and map knowledge, you need brain for positioning, not hands. Also his team moved in a way that protected his position, while he had no backup weapons. 1 mech coming close would rip him apart. Any mech.
3. LRMs (and ATMs) have that thing I like to call useless bonus damage. Damage numbers are inflated, because you shoot arms and legs and torsos at once, while the only some of it contributes to the kill. Ergo, your damage in an LRM/ATM boat does not represent your actual contribution to kills/victory. I would say he did about 450 usefull damage, maybe less, against totally clueless enemies that assisted him with their own inability to protect themselves.

I'd disagree with that assessment of ATMs, for two reasons:

1. You get few enough shots that any half-competent player will make them count, which means waiting until you have a shot from the front or rear. And whatever the effective spread is, it's not enough to stop you from one-shotting lights, so it's not terrible.

2. If you're running 3/6s, you're firing so few missiles that there's effectively no spread. If you're running 9/12s, you're doing enough damage that whatever you hit is either gone or opened up. LRM spread damage is bad specifically because it puts damage across every component without doing much beyond scratching the armor, short of prolonged sustained fire. That's decidedly not how ATMs play out. It also helps that ATM volleys are small enough to make it difficult to actually twist them.

[Weeny Machine]

Brain Cancer, on 11 August 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Very good, although I'd say it as "skill can push those ERLLs to a higher plateau than LRMs."

Now, here's the killer question.

Given all these flaws and counters, why, if at all, are LRMs considered balanced against other weapons? Why is an ineffective weapon left ineffective?

because this weapon has the potential to shut down the gameplay completely. Imagine you cannot move because you get "missile warning" on your screen and know that within a second you get hit my a huge barrage because (just an example) the missile speed got increased

[The Lighthouse]

I mean, sigh, we already have really good solution to LRM problem. And the solution exists for more than a decade.

Copy & Paste LRM mechanics from MW4. Done. Very high damage, fire and forget but low terrain avoidance and needs LOS to lock.

[sub2000]

I strongly believe that the number of lrm lovers would go down if PGI finely reduces default sensitivity for mouse, or even better completely rewrites mouse interface.
In the current system aiming within different amplifications produces different results even if you tune up your mouse sensitivity (that is why you see so many pugs with advanced zoom= they cann't hit anything otherwise).

[Dago Red]

sub2000, on 12 August 2017 - 05:08 AM, said:

I strongly believe that the number of lrm lovers would go down if PGI finely reduces default sensitivity for mouse, or even better completely rewrites mouse interface.
In the current system aiming within different amplifications produces different results even if you tune up your mouse sensitivity (that is why you see so many pugs with advanced zoom= they cann't hit anything otherwise).

This is probably the easiest to hit opponents in shooter I've ever played. If they can't figure out a mouse sensitivity that works for them to that degree then their maximum skill ceiling for a game with this many fiddly bits was already doomed.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 11 August 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

Why would they remove those counters? As it stands, LRMs are considered so weak the vast majority of players don't even use the most common ones, as they require increasingly disproportionate efforts on the missile boat's part to hit people who recognize basic cover, never mind "AMS kills the missiles".



The weapon type that also delivers the weakest damage type in the game, especially and specifically in indirect fire mode is the LRM. Which also gets to be the only weapon type that has multiple counters built in, before taking simple cover into account.



I'm curious as to how you'd make a straight firing non-guided missile compete with the SRM and MRM, considering. Or the LB-X.



I mean, we're talking a weapon that can be "OP" if you literally decide not to take LRM counters and happen to be on a map where you don't get to walk behind a rock and laugh at the rain. On a Tuesday. A weapon with lots of easily had counters that rarely see common use because the weapon is considered so weak by experienced players, why would you bother?

"It's OP if you're stupid and do nothing to stop it", basically. Otherwise, it takes unholy levels of effort to even be mediocre. Now, I've seen WoT artillery. That stuff hit like a rear-armor (or in this case, top-armor) seeking dual AC/20. LRMs, other than when bugged, have nowhere near the potency of such a weapon.


Considering right now it's an amazing(ly painful) match that I see more than one AMS-equipped opponent, yeah.



Velocity effectively increases missile health, while actual missile health is probably what ATM's need more than the LRM. And yes, considering people were horrified about LRMs having a velocity any intelligent missile boater now skill nodes them to being the end of the world, we're likely stuck with "balance by potato".

Of course, gawds help us if they applied that to all weapons. We'd be flashlightvomiting people while using Ultrafoamball/20's to hurt the other guy's feelings, if they were balanced to the same standards as LRMs.

You're doing it again. Stop pulling pieces and read things as a whole. You completely missed the point of "remover radar dep..." because you homed in on one portion instead of the piece as a whole.

And I've already discussed how I would change LRMs so they can be effective, require some skill, and don't have the indirect fire power problems.

Going back to WoT though since it's probably the easiest way to keep you from bouncing all over the post. In WoT the arty hit hard per shot mostly. In MWO the arty (LRMs) is weak individually but it can fire rapidly and with a much great level of accuracy. The problem isn't whether it's one big boom or a bunch of little booms, the problem is indirect fire allows the user vehicle to attack and kill the target vehicle while the target vehicle can do nothing in return. Indirect fire in and of itself has the potential to be OP simply because it can hit a target without getting hit back.

MWO decided to balance indirect fire by putting in multiple counters, requiring someone to have LOS on the target, and making the indirect rounds relatively slow to give the target time to maneuver. And still people complain about the fact LRMs can ruin a match. Sure it doesn't happen often, but when it does happen it has a significant negative impact on the bulk of the players in that match.

All of which goes to explain why LRMs are forced to be made a mostly ineffective weapon with more counters than anything else. Because when it is able to be good it can be devastating and if it was any stronger then it would be the dominate weapon in the game.

It also explains why the skill floor is so low and why the ceiling is lower than any other weapon. The weapon has been tuned down to the point there is very little skill required to use it. The weapon can't be allowed to be used skillfully because it would take over the game.


All of which means the only way LRMs can get fixed is to have their indirect fire option be so weak it is nothing more than an annoyance. It should be pure flavor that no one really uses other than it's cool to watch.

So LRMs have to become a direct fire weapon if they are going to be effective and competitive. At which point they would pretty much resemble longer ranged MRMs with tighter grouping and higher velocity. Or, they could be wire guided with slow velocity and mediocre grouping. Personally I would prefer they just be dumbfire so I can maneuver after shooting, but I'm sure some would demand some way to guide the weapons over long range. It's a mistake but people enjoy doing dumb stuff for some reason.

Indirect would be some kind of area effect option and there are a few ways that can be pulled off. Doesn't really matter how it's done as long as the rounds aren't homing straight to a mech, their damage is so weak it can be mostly ignored, and it doesn't fully negate medium height 12-15m terrain features.

Then we would have a true long range missile system while still having an indirect fire option for purists who insist it has to be in MWO.

That's how you fix LRMs so they are no longer the crappiest weapon in the game with the potential to be stupidly overpowered in the right circumstances which is why they are the crappiest weapon in the game.

[MischiefSC]

Crank velocity to 600 and tight cluster for direct fire with a flatter trajectory. Require indirect to have TAG/NARC on target and have it work like it does currently without artemis, as in big wide spread.

Then you can remove counters and have them just slow locks.

That would be a start. ATMs had the potential to be this but 120m deadzone makes them pugfarm only.

[Ruar]

MischiefSC, on 12 August 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

Crank velocity to 600 and tight cluster for direct fire with a flatter trajectory. Require indirect to have TAG/NARC on target and have it work like it does currently without artemis, as in big wide spread.

Then you can remove counters and have them just slow locks.

That would be a start. ATMs had the potential to be this but 120m deadzone makes them pugfarm only.

Homing has to go. Even in direct fire homing has to go.

[MischiefSC]

Ruar, on 12 August 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

Homing has to go. Even in direct fire homing has to go.

if it was weap, correction steering I'd be okay with it. It makes up for lower than ballistic velocity and still spreading damage. Let's you aim with your lasers or ballistics and still have the missiles hit at mid-long range.

[Ruar]

MischiefSC, on 12 August 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

if it was weap, correction steering I'd be okay with it. It makes up for lower than ballistic velocity and still spreading damage. Let's you aim with your lasers or ballistics and still have the missiles hit at mid-long range.

ATMs work with homing because of the low number of missiles per volley and slow speed. LRMs though would be too much damage per volley if they had 600 velocity, tight spread, and homing. I'd like to see them have 900 velocity, tight spread, and no homing to start with and adjust from there.

[Maker L106]

L0stA1m, on 11 August 2017 - 10:52 PM, said:

Or just use real weapons. Autoaim sucks in a FPS. It's like the smart gun in Titanfall. A mechanic for sh1ttier players. LRM the noobtube of MWO.

I don't know... if that were the case you'd see a lot more complaints from average players about infinite ammo one man army danger close types... i mean 4 ATM 12's at 190 basically delete things... but i can't do that forever...

Also... why does homing need to go? Poke your nose out, get it smacked. That's how this sort of thing works. You don't reward players for sheepish activity. You get NARC'd you'd better have buddies with ECM or hide. If you were a light or medium doing clandestine operations away from your team... well tough ****. You knew the risk when you left the herd. Can't handle that? Mech dead. back to the garage.

Of all the complaints i see from people about LRM's its always "don't bring them they aren't effective"

Then people immediately "don't buff them, just change them."

Direct fire LRM's are a thing, people do that now WITH the lock system while fighting. Some don't ... but it does soften up targets it hits for the others. Not useful in high level as I and many have stated before but it does help out. What defeats my sense of logic is that "if they aren't useful and I shouldn't bring them." Then why do you see targets that get NARC'd or Tag'd in situations where they can't hide with ECM get absolutely destroyed?

Even if the LRM's DONT kill them outright they can cripple them severely. And that's not just polar highlands. Alpine, Dagobah, even in HPG I've seen people get absolutely deleted by LRM's and ATMs just because they couldn't easily break lock or hide from the pursuer or team in general.

To emphasize this, I've seen Atlas 7-D's go down to having been narc'd LRM's rain on them then by the time they hit the team are easily torn to pieces by a few mediums with direct fire weapons. Hell the best economy of this i can think of is the KDK-3 UAC10x4. you pair mr 40-80 with a narc guy and a few LRM users (they don't even have to be boats) and by the time the KDK engages the enemy they'll be ripe for him to just walk through.

Are the enemies potatoes? Possibly, I've no real way of knowing in game.

Do the LRM's need a rework? Yes, I just don't agree with many ideas that remove their lock ability as it is THE selling point of the weapon system to be capable of Indirect fire. Which the user must sacrifice weight, and hardpoints for.