71 replies to this topic

[Jun Watarase]

Making LRMs better : make them a mainly direct fire weapon. The problem now is that their direct fire sucks,, their indirect fire sucks on most maps due to cover, and on maps without cover a few seconds of focused fire from 2-3 LRM boats can easily take out most of your armor.

Make indirect fire weak and ineffective without TAG/NARC. Make direct fire decent on its own. Part of the problem with LRMs is since they are indirect most of the time, you can boat them without caring much about backup weapons which leads to ridiculous amounts of LRMs per mech and ghost heat for missiles doesnt do much. Drop range down to about the range of an ER LL or so, dramatically increase velocity so you cant simply reverse out of the flight path, tweak missile hp so that amount of missiles killed by AMS is about the same.

[Ruar]

The problem with LRMs is they are both an indirect fire weapon and a homing weapon. ATMs are homing weapons but they are strong because you have to expose yourself to use them. That's risk vs. reward balanced properly.

LRMs do not have a balanced risk vs. reward because they can be used indirectly and home to the target. If you want to buff LRMs then either get rid of homing or get rid of indirect, or some combination of the two.

I think LRMs should be designed to primarily be a direct fire weapon similar to ATMs. Whether you have a homing mechanic (not preferred) or you simply give them enough velocity to be fire and forget like MRMs (preferred) doesn't really matter as long as they main role is to be used in direct fire. Then have a toggle to switch to indirect fire mode and you get more of an area effect weapon that homes in on the spot where a mech was standing at the time the missiles were fired. This allows for engagement of enemies who refuse to come out of cover, but also prevents someone who is moving from getting pummeled by people that can't be touched.

PGI made a mistake having LRMs be indirect fire. There's no real need for it in the game because of how much movement there is on each side. Then they doubled down on the mistake by having indirect fire weapons that will home to the target. Now we have a situation where LRMs have to remain watered down and the lowest skill weapon because any improvements results in them becoming the dominant weapon on the battlefield. Even in their relatively poor design right now they can be devastating in the right circumstances which is why we see LRM boats in every match using up valuable assault mech slots because people love holding down the fire button and hoping this time the results will somehow be different.

[Brain Cancer]

What's sad is that LRMs have been better in the past.

And they weren't dominant, other than points where the weapon was actually bugged and turned into a head/CT drill, and -possibly- for the brief period of time where Clan LRMs functioned like no-min IS LRMs. Just on Test.

LRMs have had higher damage. It was nerfed. LRMs have had higher velocity. It was nerfed. They've clustered better. Nerfed. At none of those points were LRMs dominating anything except sealclubbing and potato farming, yet they were constantly made worse. They had a warning system added, because looking up for slowly flying clouds of missiles was tough and only Gauss should be invisible ninja strikes of 15 damage.

In fact, for a weapon consistently considered second-rate other than coding screw-ups, it's gotten put down an astonishingly large number of times.

[Pjwned]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 05:10 AM, said:

So, mulling over the LRMs, i've been pondering why it's considered as bad. There's a multitude of counters such as AMS and Cover, even ECM too. It requires locks to be effective, and needs sustained stare to retain lock. While it goes over terrain, it takes a long time to get there, and incoming missiles are announced to the target. Add in the spread damage, that you couldn't compensate by getting closer like SRMs. With how easy to counter LRMs, it's usually more about targets making mistakes, than the user being good.

I don't say that LRMs are OP, though i found them to be annoying. Players would thoughtlessly just put so much missile-racks and spam their way, and with the feature of indirect fire allows terribad to lurm from behind with little movement or involvement in sharing armor -- they just need locks. Because of spamming, even with bad weapons they could get results.

I want to somehow make LRMs less bad, and i have an idea of how to make it work.



This spamming is something I would like to modify. My general aim is to put more weight with the LRMs' volley, and reduce rate of fire. By doing so, LRMs couldn't chain as effectively. The LRMs could deal a lot more meaningful damage, with the long cooldown as the drawback.

Because it's not capable of just raining the battlefield, the LRMs takes a bit more supplementary role than being completely viable as a primary weapon that you can just boat. The increased damage means that you don't need to opt as much tube count for a good alpha damage -- also at the same case as the Rocket Launcher having it's damage boosted, that is done as well because of the LRMs being less meaningful due to the doubled armor, as the Rocket Launchers would be less meaningful if they retained their lore damage.

People would need to put better thought with each launch just as a sniper needs good thought with each shot. But should they happen to land a volley/shot, it would be meaningful and that would be the challenge. As opposed of just hurling lots of missiles hoping for a result, this would at least make the LRM's damage decent if you can make it land.

Another addition is that the removal of the need of sustained missile-lock to guide missiles, you only need it to launch. You just need to retain target lock to have your missiles guided.

What do you think?

Normalizing spread on bigger launchers is going in the right direction, but the rest isn't needed.

Instead, just nerf ECM so that it's no longer the lame null-sig bubble BS that it is currently and just make it do what it's supposed to do according to lore; stealth armor can largely stay as is but ECM needs a huge nerf.

Problem solved, now LRMs are fine with no need to make unnecessary & heavy-handed changes to everything else.

Edited by Pjwned, 11 September 2017 - 02:32 PM.

[JadeTea]

Improvements needen:

1) TAG - as guider-rangefinder as it works with Arrow-4
2) NARC - as instalock beacon till it last despite the terrain/texture and fly-arc corrector for missiles
3) Range need to be increased up to 1100-1200 meres

4th) Give us Arrow-IV finaly for the mech sake.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 11 September 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

What's sad is that LRMs have been better in the past.

And they weren't dominant, other than points where the weapon was actually bugged and turned into a head/CT drill, and -possibly- for the brief period of time where Clan LRMs functioned like no-min IS LRMs. Just on Test.

LRMs have had higher damage. It was nerfed. LRMs have had higher velocity. It was nerfed. They've clustered better. Nerfed. At none of those points were LRMs dominating anything except sealclubbing and potato farming, yet they were constantly made worse. They had a warning system added, because looking up for slowly flying clouds of missiles was tough and only Gauss should be invisible ninja strikes of 15 damage.

In fact, for a weapon consistently considered second-rate other than coding screw-ups, it's gotten put down an astonishingly large number of times.

How much of the player base though just isn't that good? If you want to retain a player population you have to keep them playing past the first week. If LRMs are only good against people who don't really understand the game then you'll end up driving away your population before they have a chance to get better at the game.

indirect fire + homing = bad design. It's just that simple.

[JadeTea]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 05:10 AM, said:

So, mulling over the LRMs, i've been pondering why it's considered as bad. There's a multitude of counters such as AMS and Cover, even ECM too. It requires locks to be effective, and needs sustained stare to retain lock. While it goes over terrain, it takes a long time to get there, and incoming missiles are announced to the target. Add in the spread damage, that you couldn't compensate by getting closer like SRMs. With how easy to counter LRMs, it's usually more about targets making mistakes, than the user being good.

I don't say that LRMs are OP, though i found them to be annoying. Players would thoughtlessly just put so much missile-racks and spam their way, and with the feature of indirect fire allows terribad to lurm from behind with little movement or involvement in sharing armor -- they just need locks. Because of spamming, even with bad weapons they could get results.

I want to somehow make LRMs less bad, and i have an idea of how to make it work.



This spamming is something I would like to modify. My general aim is to put more weight with the LRMs' volley, and reduce rate of fire. By doing so, LRMs couldn't chain as effectively. The LRMs could deal a lot more meaningful damage, with the long cooldown as the drawback.

Because it's not capable of just raining the battlefield, the LRMs takes a bit more supplementary role than being completely viable as a primary weapon that you can just boat. The increased damage means that you don't need to opt as much tube count for a good alpha damage -- also at the same case as the Rocket Launcher having it's damage boosted, that is done as well because of the LRMs being less meaningful due to the doubled armor, as the Rocket Launchers would be less meaningful if they retained their lore damage.

People would need to put better thought with each launch just as a sniper needs good thought with each shot. But should they happen to land a volley/shot, it would be meaningful and that would be the challenge. As opposed of just hurling lots of missiles hoping for a result, this would at least make the LRM's damage decent if you can make it land.

Another addition is that the removal of the need of sustained missile-lock to guide missiles, you only need it to launch. You just need to retain target lock to have your missiles guided.

What do you think?

NO. Completely NOT.

LRM's are fine where they are atm. Yes, damage they do is kind a not as expected, but as surpression/artillery support weapon they are in the correct place.
Yes. LRM's need a TAG guidance. A NARC buff, also range buff for both NARC and LRM's. But the rest you described is the roles which belongs to...

...ARROW-IV!!!

Instead of breaking LRM's more just give playes long awaited Arrow-4 launchers. That is perfect NLOS sniping weapon. But the overall situation about large platforms boating missile launchers not gonna change, and actually there is no reason for a change. I use LRM's more or less, and even if we give Arrow-4 to the players you'll gonna see such stufff as: - Some AWS or CL-10Q with two Arrow-4 launchers and TAG some where 2-3 miles away sitting on the ridge, scanning with TAG area for a victim time to time throwing few "tommahawks" into a "dog fight". Nothing gonna change. Ever. But for those who know how to use LRM's or ATM's, Arrow-4 would give another heaven of opportunity.

And remember the axiome: - Better is the worstest enemy of the good.

Edited by JadeTea, 11 September 2017 - 02:48 PM.

[Pjwned]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

How much of the player base though just isn't that good? If you want to retain a player population you have to keep them playing past the first week. If LRMs are only good against people who don't really understand the game then you'll end up driving away your population before they have a chance to get better at the game.

indirect fire + homing = bad design. It's just that simple.

Getting pounded by LRMs teaches you to value any of the numerous counters to LRMs, especially cover.

It's not a problem as long as the playerbase don't act like ****heads when addressing complaints about LRMs from new players, or if it is still a problem for somebody then most likely this isn't the type of game for them anyways.

[The6thMessenger]

JadeTea, on 11 September 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

And remember the axiome: - Better is the worstest enemy of the good.

What would an ancient poet know about developing a game?

[Ruar]

Pjwned, on 11 September 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

Getting pounded by LRMs teaches you to value any of the numerous counters to LRMs, especially cover.

It's not a problem as long as the playerbase don't act like ****heads when addressing complaints about LRMs from new players, or if it is still a problem for somebody then most likely this isn't the type of game for them anyways.

Getting pounded by LRMs makes most people leave the game. There is a reason I'm a founder who didn't start really playing until last year. All I remember from the early days was streams of LRMs incoming and I moved on to WoT instead.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

Getting pounded by LRMs makes most people leave the game. There is a reason I'm a founder who didn't start really playing until last year. All I remember from the early days was streams of LRMs incoming and I moved on to WoT instead.

Kind of the reason why i approached the artillery-esque approach to LRMs. That spammability is unhealthy.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

Kind of the reason why i approached the artillery-esque approach to LRMs. That spammability is unhealthy.

Yeah, but it's still artillery, if slower firing.

The only way to improve LRMs is first make them direct fire. Anything else will just result in them being abused.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

indirect fire + homing = bad design. It's just that simple.

You got traumatized one too many times by WoT artillery, Ruar. These aren't backfield god-guns or stunner blasting glass cannons. They're the most gentle hits in the game and unlike arty, they're defeated by a rock. At the very least.

Quote

Getting pounded by LRMs makes most people leave the game.

Actually, it makes most players capable of competent play find some cover, use ECM, mount some AMS, maybe radar dep. Massed LRM fire is a big flashing sign saying "THIS TEAM CAN'T PUSH, MURDER THEM".

It is VERY good at making bad players die and anyone else that really screws up die slowly, considering how much you have to bludgeon someone with missiles alone to death. If they leave, I'm not shedding many tears considering how they've been thwarted and cowed by something you can use a rock to defeat. That's a pure failure to learn the fundamentals of the game, like "cover is your friend" and "staying in LOS of the enemy team will attract fire".


Edit: Heck, I've even agreed with slower LRM reload-higher damage to kill spammage. Crank that cooldown up to 6-7 seconds or so if it means I hit people harder.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 11 September 2017 - 03:30 PM.

[JadeTea]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

What would an ancient poet know about developing a game?

He knows a lot about developing a... LIFE. That is more important and works fine also for the game.
Man. Only problem MWO have now is: - Depopulation. Any complication of gaming process = depopulation.
PGI need new customers, we need fresh meet. So to solve it we need more: - New mechs, maps, game modes like SIEGE ASSAULT and weapons.

But we deffinetly do not need a gaming process complication even for a balance sake. Trust me, I know what is game development.

[JadeTea]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

Getting pounded by LRMs makes most people leave the game. There is a reason I'm a founder who didn't start really playing until last year. All I remember from the early days was streams of LRMs incoming and I moved on to WoT instead.

Man, trust me... TORPEDO BEATS is worster than arty in WoT and our Strike Spams and LURM SHOWERS. Much worst.

[Ruar]

Brain Cancer, on 11 September 2017 - 03:26 PM, said:

You got traumatized one too many times by WoT artillery, Ruar. These aren't backfield god-guns or stunner blasting glass cannons. They're the most gentle hits in the game and unlike arty, they're defeated by a rock. At the very least.



Actually, it makes most players capable of competent play find some cover, use ECM, mount some AMS, maybe radar dep. Massed LRM fire is a big flashing sign saying "THIS TEAM CAN'T PUSH, MURDER THEM".

It is VERY good at making bad players die and anyone else that really screws up die slowly, considering how much you have to bludgeon someone with missiles alone to death. If they leave, I'm not shedding many tears considering how they've been thwarted and cowed by something you can use a rock to defeat. That's a pure failure to learn the fundamentals of the game, like "cover is your friend" and "staying in LOS of the enemy team will attract fire".


Edit: Heck, I've even agreed with slower LRM reload-higher damage to kill spammage. Crank that cooldown up to 6-7 seconds or so if it means I hit people harder.

Incorrect, but does it really matter? I won't be able to convince you.

One thing I've always found interesting is why people think MWO even needs an indirect fire mechanic. The only one that I've seen with any value is "because that is how LRMs worked in lore". I've yet to see an argument that actually explains why it's needed in the game though.

[The6thMessenger]

JadeTea, on 11 September 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

He knows a lot about developing a... LIFE. That is more important and works fine also for the game.

What, are you kidding? The best advice that he could give us is to get off the damn game, meet ladies or men, or get a job that we enjoy. To do something productive in our lives than wasting away our time on some virtual world.

JadeTea, on 11 September 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

But we deffinetly do not need a gaming process complication even for a balance sake. Trust me, I know what is game development.

I'm not gonna trust a mechanist to mess around my teeth, I'd get a dentist instead. No, i'm not gonna trust you, i don't know you, anyone can say anything in the internet.

For example: I'm a god on the 11th dimension, and I get frequent conjugal visit from Cthulu.

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

Yeah, but it's still artillery, if slower firing.

The only way to improve LRMs is first make them direct fire. Anything else will just result in them being abused.

Right well, LRMs are designed for indirect fire support. Making them ATM-esque would make redundant weapons systems. Well the IS would probably benefit from straight-line LRM flight when you have LOS.

Anyways, what kind of abuse are we talking about? I've been reading back, so far you have not proven your assertions. If you meant that LRMers could just stay behind and lurm -- that's not really abuse, that's making use of the indirect fire qualities.

I approached it as an Artillery precisely because I intend it to be placed on a supplementary role.

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

One thing I've always found interesting is why people think MWO even needs an indirect fire mechanic. The only one that I've seen with any value is "because that is how LRMs worked in lore". I've yet to see an argument that actually explains why it's needed in the game though.

Probably diversity? As a support weapon? To fit the role of an indirect support that would allow players to support their teams faraway and behind the lines.

The game is mecha fps mil-sim, so it would be understandable that various strategies involving many types of weapon system could be employed. Indirect fire, such as mortars and field artillery is part of military strategy, likewise various other games. Maybe you don't see it because you think that MWO is like that of COD in being an FPS?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 September 2017 - 04:20 PM.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 04:10 PM, said:

Right well, LRMs are designed for indirect fire support. Making them ATM-esque would make redundant weapons systems. Well the IS would probably benefit from straight-line LRM flight when you have LOS.

Anyways, what kind of abuse are we talking about? I've been reading back, so far you have not proven your assertions. If you meant that LRMers could just stay behind and lurm -- that's not really abuse, that's making use of the indirect fire qualities.

I approached it as an Artillery precisely because I intend it to be placed on a supplementary role.

Abuse as in killing people while never being exposed. There is a reason LRMs are one of the most popular weapons in QP matches, it's because people are afraid to get shot at and LRMs let them hide. Improve LRMs and why would you take anything else?

Tell me why the game even needs an indirect fire weapon when there is no ability to camp an area.

[Trissila]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

Incorrect, but does it really matter? I won't be able to convince you.

One thing I've always found interesting is why people think MWO even needs an indirect fire mechanic. The only one that I've seen with any value is "because that is how LRMs worked in lore". I've yet to see an argument that actually explains why it's needed in the game though.

In theory it allows one team to break the pokefest stalemate that matches so often devolve into. They get a spotter behind the enemy line and they're now able to do damage without exposing themselves to return fire, which is how the poke-based game works. You automatically win trades to which the enemy cannot respond, even if they are horribly inefficient trades.

In practice, however, pub teams are never coordinated with their loadouts so as to bring a meaningful amount of missile racks + ammo, and competent teams -- even pub teams -- quickly realize that indirect LRM fire means there is a spotter, and all they have to do is hunt down the one spotter and murder him to shut it down entirely.

Because MWO doesn't actually have true indirect fire. What it has is direct-fire-by-proxy, where the launchers may be indirect, but they require a direct spotter to provide the locks.

[Ruar]

Trissila, on 11 September 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

In theory it allows one team to break the pokefest stalemate that matches so often devolve into. They get a spotter behind the enemy line and they're now able to do damage without exposing themselves to return fire, which is how the poke-based game works. You automatically win trades to which the enemy cannot respond, even if they are horribly inefficient trades.

In practice, however, pub teams are never coordinated with their loadouts so as to bring a meaningful amount of missile racks + ammo, and competent teams -- even pub teams -- quickly realize that indirect LRM fire means there is a spotter, and all they have to do is hunt down the one spotter and murder him to shut it down entirely.

Because MWO doesn't actually have true indirect fire. What it has is direct-fire-by-proxy, where the launchers may be indirect, but they require a direct spotter to provide the locks.

You kind of left out the part where you can flank any piece of terrain on any map without having to rely on indirect fire.