71 replies to this topic

[Novakaine]

Novakaine approves this thread.

[The6thMessenger]

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

Abuse as in killing people while never being exposed.

That's "Abuse" to you? That's precisely the point of indirect fire.

"Fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer" - AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions

And before you say that "Kill" not just "fire". Remember, shell explode and sends shrapnel everywhere, it's not supposed to tickle, it's supposed to hurt and kill.

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

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?

Because common soldiers wouldn't just use personal field-artillery, those are for specialized roles -- supportive. If everyone took LRMs and shoot from cover, they couldn't get an LOS and then lock. Direct fire would also work far better at most cases, doesn't need lock, hits a lot more reliably too.

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

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

Lol, non sequitur. You don't need camp an area to make good use of indirect fire.

And before you do say that "Howitzers are Planted", military people actually thought of mobile howitzers. https://en.wikipedia...elled_artillery

Then again, you CAN camp, just not frequently so.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 September 2017 - 04:39 PM.

[Trissila]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

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.

I left it out because it's not true, at least not down in T3. 9 times out of 10, unless you go so far around as to be effectively sandbagging your team, you're going to take so much poke damage on the way over that you've got very little left by the time you get over there. And even if you don't? You get one shot, and then three or four of them turn around and waste you unless, again, you went way out of your way to get in one poke and then run away, effectively removing your tonnage from your team. And if the other team isn't stupid, they're not going to chase you, or do much more than dedicate a brawler with nothing better to do to watch for you and call you out if you ever show your face again.

[Ted Wayz]

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

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.

With the recent (this year) changes to LRMs, more added counters and the introduction of the skill tree, what decent lurmer still spams chain fire?

Once again someone who doesn't know a weapon system trying to change it in order to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

LRMs are fine. The proper use requires you use them at 300-500M with LOS. This is not easy, especially if you are identified as an IS LRM boat. Decreasing ROF (huge disadvantage) while decreasing travel time (negligible advantage at ideal ranges) would make skilled use, which is difficult, near impossible.

[Mr Steinbrenner]

Despite apparently being awful they are still the main weapon for a quarter of the team almost every QP match. Leave them be.

[The6thMessenger]

Ted Wayz, on 11 September 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

With the recent (this year) changes to LRMs, more added counters and the introduction of the skill tree, what decent lurmer still spams chain fire?

And that's the thing, potato chain-fires and still get results. That's because of the weapon system flourishes more on targets making mistakes -- and there's lots of mistakes made by noobs -- than lurmers actually playing right.

Ted Wayz, on 11 September 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

LRMs are fine. The proper use requires you use them at 300-500M with LOS. This is not easy, especially if you are identified as an IS LRM boat. Decreasing ROF (huge disadvantage) while decreasing travel time (negligible advantage at ideal ranges) would make skilled use, which is difficult, near impossible.

Consider for a moment what you just said. Increase of velocity is negligible on 300m - 500m, but wouldn't that mean that it would have considerable advantage beyond? And who said that the LRM's ideal range is? That is the ideal range because it's limited by it's current velocity, increase the velocity and you increase the ideal range.

People are already making skilled use of LRMs, don't exaggerate.

Ted Wayz, on 11 September 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

Once again someone who doesn't know a weapon system trying to change it in order to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Now that's out of the way, lets be serious. Please stop with Ad Hominems, it doesn't do any good to the discussion.

[Ruar]

The6thMessenger, on 11 September 2017 - 04:31 PM, said:

That's "Abuse" to you? That's precisely the point of indirect fire.

"Fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer" - AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions

And before you say that "Kill" not just "fire". Remember, shell explode and sends shrapnel everywhere, it's not supposed to tickle, it's supposed to hurt and kill.



Because common soldiers wouldn't just use personal field-artillery, those are for specialized roles -- supportive. If everyone took LRMs and shoot from cover, they couldn't get an LOS and then lock. Direct fire would also work far better at most cases, doesn't need lock, hits a lot more reliably too.



Lol, non sequitur. You don't need camp an area to make good use of indirect fire.

And before you do say that "Howitzers are Planted", military people actually thought of mobile howitzers. https://en.wikipedia...elled_artillery

Then again, you CAN camp, just not frequently so.

The point you seemed to miss or ignore, is that since there is no need for an indirect fire weapon in the game there is no need to force LRMs to be indirect fire weapons. They should shift to primarily direct fire with a little indirect capability for flavor. Then you can make them strong weapons like ATMs or SRMs and maybe even get rid of some of the counters.

[The Lighthouse]

Make LRMs require line of sight to fire. Buff everything else. Firing at tagged and/or NARC'd target no longer requires locking and allows fire without the line of sight.

Basically almost copy & paste MW4 if you ask me.

[Wil McCullough]

i had an idea to make lurms track components that the cursor of the firer is over. not pinpoint, but with a much tighter spread than now.

that would make lurms more competitive with direct fire weapons, while encouraging direct fire and holding line of sight. if a flatter trajectory is needed, so be it. put that in too.

indirect fire can keep the current spread and high missile arc.

[The6thMessenger]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

The point you seemed to miss or ignore, is that since there is no need for an indirect fire weapon in the game there is no need to force LRMs to be indirect fire weapons.

It's hard to acknowledge a point that's barely have any merit. You're coming from a point that arguably nobody else is agreeing with. You say I miss the point, when precisely I'm challenging the point.

I would say that the problem is that, you insist that the game does not need indirect fire, therefore there shouldn't be indirect fire. I mean, who are you to just say that? Is truth is whatever you say is true? That's an assertion, an assertion that you have not proven.

Need in what sense? Couldn't we say that there's a need for it to be indirect fire because it's intended to be a support-role weapon? One that goes over people's heads and over terrains so you can provide fire despite not having direct line of sight to do so when your other direct fire weapons are indisposed of?

Even if there's "no need", couldn't we just want to? Or PGI want to? Yes balance could be a bit more complicated, but that's what i've been trying to do -- balance it on PGI's terms. As far as I'm concerned, we have it, that's what we have to work with.

Sure we (I) haven't have proof that the game needs indirect fire, however i am not arguing for that.The game HAS indirect fire, and all i'm doing is just actually make it not bad.

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

They should shift to primarily direct fire with a little indirect capability for flavor. Then you can make them strong weapons like ATMs or SRMs and maybe even get rid of some of the counters.

Or you know, make the Indirect fire better so the actually excel at their roles.

Wil McCullough, on 11 September 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

i had an idea to make lurms track components that the cursor of the firer is over. not pinpoint, but with a much tighter spread than now.

So a long-range streak? People shut me down for that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 11 September 2017 - 05:53 PM.

[adamts01]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

The point you seemed to miss or ignore, is that since there is no need for an indirect fire weapon in the game there is no need to force LRMs to be indirect fire weapons. They should shift to primarily direct fire with a little indirect capability for flavor. Then you can make them strong weapons like ATMs or SRMs and maybe even get rid of some of the counters.

We don't need to limit our few strategic choices by removing our only weapon that isn't LOS. We need more choices, not fewer.

Most of OP's stuff is good. The only thing I'll add is that ammo per ton needs to be reduced if damage is going to go up. Let those few valuable shots wreck, and limit the amount that can be carried. No more spam. This also promotes teamwork because you really need to trust and communicate with your spotter to make sure you have a good target.

[The6thMessenger]

adamts01, on 11 September 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

Most of OP's stuff is good. The only thing I'll add is that ammo per ton needs to be reduced if damage is going to go up. Let those few valuable shots wreck, and limit the amount that can be carried. No more spam. This also promotes teamwork because you really need to trust and communicate with your spotter to make sure you have a good target.

Yuuup, forgot about that.

[Pjwned]

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

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.

You usually have to be pretty bad to die to the types of LRM pilots that are never exposed, which also means never getting their own locks which then means being way less effective unless their targets are potatoes.

[Pjwned]

Wil McCullough, on 11 September 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

i had an idea to make lurms track components that the cursor of the firer is over. not pinpoint, but with a much tighter spread than now.

that would make lurms more competitive with direct fire weapons, while encouraging direct fire and holding line of sight. if a flatter trajectory is needed, so be it. put that in too.

indirect fire can keep the current spread and high missile arc.

That sounds like something that would be limited to NARC and/or TAG, if at all.

[Trissila]

Pjwned, on 11 September 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

That sounds like something that would be limited to NARC and/or TAG, if at all.

Hell, at this point it would be nice if NARC actually did anything if you're running Artemis and have direct LoS.

[Sjorpha]

I do think LRMs need a significant buf with how weak they are currently, but I don't think the way they work or their fire rate is a problem.

Just straight up buff the velocity and damage a bit.

[The6thMessenger]

Sjorpha, on 11 September 2017 - 06:17 PM, said:

I do think LRMs need a significant buf with how weak they are currently, but I don't think the way they work or their fire rate is a problem.

Just straight up buff the velocity and damage a bit.

That part removes the spamability, where one can just compensate for skill with increasing the volume of fire.

[Brain Cancer]

Ruar, on 11 September 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

The point you seemed to miss or ignore, is that since there is no need for an indirect fire weapon in the game there is no need to force LRMs to be indirect fire weapons. They should shift to primarily direct fire with a little indirect capability for flavor. Then you can make them strong weapons like ATMs or SRMs and maybe even get rid of some of the counters.

"LRMs shouldn't be indirect fire because I don't like indirect fire, so there is no need for a weapon I won't use to be in the game."

I know, you're going to say that's not what it sounds like. But it does.

Indirect fire weapons break pokefests. They create unexpected and unequal trades, especially when one of your team can observe the enemy directly but from a safe distance/angled out of effective fire. LRMs specifically tend to tenderize a target universally rather than destroy specific sections or core a target.

Given, a GOOD LRM pilot wants his Artemis bonuses, so he'd rather position and get his shots from an angle that forces the target out into the team's firing line (or at least out of cover), where he continues to get chasing shots as the now-exposed unit is torn apart by a firing line. But if it's a choice between no missiles incoming and a parasitic lock, I'll take the (likely unstable) parasitic lock.

I do wish LRMs hit harder but fired slower. It'd reward skill and prediction, reduce ammo consumption, and screw lurmtaters who could only point at red square and hammer the fire button.

I'd like them to have more velocity. Even the slightly faster ATM velocity would be nice, giving LRMs a modest bit more accuracy and syncing them up more with ATMs.

Normalizing spread would mean everyone hits in the same area, just more missiles to it as launcher size increased, rather than seeing larger launchers lose more damage to wide-cluster whiffs.

And please, please let me fire unlocked missiles "flat". They may be slower MRMs that way, but I can finally toss missiles down a tunnel that way.

[Vellron2005]

Cathy, on 11 September 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

LRM's don't need a buff or a nerf.

They just need to be used properly, which rarely happens in Q.P

THIS.

Also, I'm pretty sure LRMs used to work similar to what the OP proposes, and were nerfed repeatedly after the era we all know as the lrmpocalipse..

The ONLY thing I would add to LRMs is the ability to shoot straight (like ATMs) while under a ceiling or when no lock-on is present..

[Valhallan]

Indirect fire should be a thing so that the scout role can be a thing, right now with the direct fire poke fest that role ends the moment you see the death ball. Thats why noone bothers with scouting and all lights mount flanking weapons instead of trying for scout capability. In addition the scout maneuvering + the ability to fire at long arcs helps break up the boring deathballs because it means you don't necessarily have to bunch up like sardines in a can. Since you can still help each other even if they are separated by canyons/hills. Of course artillery would do it better, and before someone says "op" based on WOT/IRL artillery check again, the artillery pieces available in BT are FAR weaker than the DF equivalent, even LRMS are better. Literally if you lose to an arty mech, it is because you let yourself get pounded into ash. AOE dmg is the only saving grace that can make it at least match LRM's.

No way to respond? that is a flat out lie, disregarding the hard counters that can be built into mechs AMS/ECM, if they can launch missiles at you it is because someone with LOS is locking you, that someone is what you respond to. If noone is looking at you they can't launch missiles. Getting bombarded because someone is locking you from beyond your range is no different from a ERL boat lazing you from out of your range.

LRMpocalypse was due to LRM's doing splash damage, meaning they dealt way more damage than normal and easily drilled through mechs.