136 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

I'm not talking about range, I'm talking about the missile flight path. They don't correct like LRMs do (or they just didn't up the agility of the missile to match the velocity).

And i was talking about ATM as a whole, why it sucks versus LRMs, especially when this change occurs. If there weren't any minimum range, there would be an incentive to use ATM over LRMs.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

That arc matters for being able to get over obstacles but without playing around with it I'm not really sure how much impact this has (even with direct fire use you would want some arc for mechs that go behind low cover, like stage on tourmaline).

Trick-Shots FTW, and that's the point with this homing system. How it works would depend on the skill and the imagination of the player, not just some lock-and-lurm -- it finally puts the effectiveness of the result in line with the skill of use.

I'm kind of sure that it's not readily doable with a good amount of success for newbies and terribad -- wrong angle would mean they either spread more or hit an obstacle -- and we're pretty sure that potatoes already have a difficulty clearing obstacles.

And remember how you wanted to screw people off the indirect fire? Well it also kind of "removes" the ability to indirect fire to the low-skill since they don't have the skill to lob missiles over obstacles yet, but the high-skill do have access to it and can use it. Win-win i guess?

I mean they can't even clear obstacles with their already offset launch angle:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

As for the tracking capabilities, these missiles need to have a way to track lights. That's another difference between MW4 and MWO LRMs. In MW4, getting a lock on them was sometimes really difficult, but once you got that lock the missiles had no troubles hitting them while they were going full speed perpendicular to their trajectory, so the question I have is does this change MWO LRMs for the better in that regard?

Look, i don't know man. This only outlines how the new homing property works. About the UI, that's readily adjustable afterwards.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

... As for putting per-volley significance, if I can run enough ammo and the heat to damage ratio stays the same, I'm still coming out ahead of a laser boat and able to spam way more and do more per alpha than he is, that's problematic.

I don't know, considering the different hurdles this new LRM goes through versus the Lasers -- such as laser can point and shoot and can focus damage, it probably deserves it.

We can play around the damage stats later though, but increased per-volley significance is best to lessen the spamming. Sure as hell it dreaded people long enough.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 04:00 PM.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

And it irks me that after all the wall of text i've written, "no skill weapon" is what you came to mind. Wrong, what i said is that hit-chance has more to do with your target having low skill, than high skill employed by the user, which produces a hit-chance of negative correlation with skill.

You DO know that LRMs have like 10+ hard counters? Anyone can mount an AMS, or ECM or simply stay in a buddy's ECM, or hide behind a rock.. that's not a very high-skill thing..

I would say that it's easy for noobs to avoid LRMs if people don't have high skill to use them.

So you're basing your whole premise that LRMs are only good if the target is bad? Sorry, that's simply not true.

LRMs are only good if the user is good.

LURMageddon in low tiers happens because people who don't know how to do other things see the "lock on" feature of LRMs and think its a "fire and forget" weapon.. then get disillusioned and move on to other weapons, or learn how to use LRMs. (and go to higher tiers as a consequence).

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

But regardless of whether you think that it's not really no-skill, not that i'm saying it's no skill, or you like it or not, it's still the culprit of LRMageddon at lower tiers, which prevents the LRMs from being buffed to relevance in the higher tiers. Something has to change, and after thinking, this is what i got.

I play in the higher tiers, and I see plenty of LRMs there.. They are quite relevant.

What you are possibly thinking is Comp play, where I don't personally play, but have heard that LRMs are not used much. I suspect that's because of the stigma of LRMs, and because the mode is oriented towards winning by killing enemies as fast as possible, instead of farming damage, so LRMs are less valuable because of their spread.

The fact that the tiers themselves are not very relevant and there is not much difference from the lower and the higher tiers in the level of play is a matter for another topic..

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

Or basically, "it's true because i said so".

WOW, you really have a gift of taking things out of context.

It's not "because I said so" its "because my scores speak louder than words". But you conveniently forgot to quote that part..

Edited by Vellron2005, 13 October 2017 - 12:37 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

You DO know that LRMs have like 10+ hard counters? Anyone can mount an AMS, or ECM or simply stay in a buddy's ECM, or hide behind a rock.. that's not a very high-skill thing..

Yes i do. "Behind a rock" isn't not the focus, it's positioning skills, it's literally how you survive through the use of "behind the rock" -- low skill camps or over extend, high skill does this just right. AMS and ECM, well not everybody has those but there's still people not having much problem with LRMs, after all positioning skills are actually enough to compensate.

Sure those aren't exactly high skill, but guess what we still have negative correlation with skill, and the effectiveness of LRMs. As demonstrated by low-tier lurmageddon, that wouldn't let PGI buff it into relevance in the higher tiers.

Wrong, I wasn't saying that it's working only because targets are bad, however it is a big factor. I never said that it doesn't work on higher tiers, sure you can make it work. However it still doesn't address the problem of it working too well against low-skill players, so much so that even low-skill players can make it work, thus we see the LRMageddon tier.

That's the concern. If we just don't have the LRMageddon tier, despite of it not exactly working well, I'm actually okay of how the LRMs work currently. However it doesn't, we still see such a ridiculous problem, being touchy about it just because you were personally attacked, just because you hinge your identity with LRMs, it's not helping.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

I would say that it's easy for noobs to avoid LRMs if people don't have high skill to use them.

But it's not like we should balance by potato, that's why our baseline is where the weapon is being utilized properly.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

LRMs are only good if the user is good.

Not necessarily, could work with bad targets as well. And unlike direct-fire weapons, the LRMs are homing, they just need to hover their reticle over at the target and then fire, but with direct fire weapons you need to be precise, put an adequate lead if it's moving. But as we know, low-skilled players do have a problem with aiming -- and it's that homing feature that compensates with it.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

LURMageddon in low tiers happens because people who don't know how to do other things see the "lock on" feature of LRMs and think its a "fire and forget" weapon.. then get disillusioned and move on to other weapons, or learn how to use LRMs. (and go to higher tiers as a consequence).

And yet there's a glaring effectiveness against bad targets, thus LRMageddon, that prevents it from being buffed to relevance into higher tier. Whether you think they eventually move on to better weapons is irrelevant, it's still a scourge for the inexperienced and the fact that the LRMageddon tier exists is the testament to it.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

WOW, you really have a gift of taking things out of context.

It's not "because I said so" its "because my scores speak louder than words". But you conveniently forgot to quote that part.

Since when did scores of 1 person speak for the entire population? *rhetorical question, it doesn't. It's personal testimony, it's anecdotal evidence with no sources cited, -- anecdotal evidence of which you can tailor how you like it as it fits your narrative, basically "because i say so".

I might as well say locust is OP because i got 12000 damage in a 12-v-12 in my first game.

So yeah, "Because i say so" is basically the bottom line.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

So you're basing your whole premise that LRMs are only good if the target is bad? Sorry, that's simply not true.

On the basis that "you say so". Since we're using anecdotal evidences, here's mine; i barely get nabbed by LRMs anymore ever since i straightened by gameplay and became better.

But before you say anything, address the LRMageddon tier, that's where you should start.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

I play in the higher tiers, and I see plenty of LRMs there.. They are quite relevant.

I see plenty of lrms there too -- I'm tier 1 -- yet we have different opinions. Seeing plenty of lrms does not follow it actually being good, or it having problems.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

What you are possibly thinking is Comp play, where I don't personally play, but have heard that LRMs are not used much. I suspect that's because of the stigma of LRMs, and because the mode is oriented towards winning by killing enemies as fast as possible, instead of farming damage, so LRMs are less valuable because of their spread.

Yes, you suspect, as someone who doesn't play, someone who just doesn't listen to people who play like QK. I don't have love for the guy, but really i get where he's coming from.

I would say that they are also less valuable due to all the work you have to put to actually land them, and it would be a hard challenge to actually catch a competent comp-player out of position. And then there's the slow projectile speed, and the fact that you have to stare into targets for it to land.

Add in the idea of farming damage -- that's not exactly that good. So what if you dealt lots of damage? So does your enemy that survived for a long time to deal his own damage. Kill him quickly, he's not gonna do much damage against your team or yourself. A 12v12 or 8v8 just quickly became 12v11 or 8v7. That's why it's kind of important.

Vellron2005, on 13 October 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

The fact that the tiers themselves are not very relevant and there is not much difference from the lower and the higher tiers in the level of play is a matter for another topic..

Yes, tier matter, somewhat. People start at the lower tiers, have it too hard or too punishing, and you could turn away players. And lets face it, MWO doesn't exactly have that much player-base to compete with other games -- or so we're told. And if MWO couldn't get new players, PGI can't make money.

As to whether lower tiers and higher tiers are the same, not necessarily. Tier system just prioritizes high-tier players first and then they come to the lower tiers if a match couldn't be filled. That being said, why it would be somewhat similar is explained better by the mixing of tiers. Now get a match with only Tier 1s -- that's not currently running trollishly for the lulz, or people in Comp which are select teams with good team cohesiveness, the gameplay would be far different.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 October 2017 - 01:08 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Paigan, on 13 October 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

Seriously: You just wrote an enormous post just to say that you understand what a homing mechanism is.
Jesus
(I'm not religious, it's just that it fits here so well ).

I elaborated so, to create a distinction between current homing mechanism, to the intended new homing mechanism. Besides, that's not exactly "homing", that's just the flight pattern, how the mechanics of the LRM works. Homing is exactly just a projectile that finds its target and go to it automatically, that's not hard to explain.

Paigan, on 13 October 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

Also, your overlong analysis is onesided (selective perception, one of the main reasons for most problems).
The homing mechanism give a hit advantage, yes. But LRMs have also many, many disadvantages that direct fire weapons (e.g. the ACs you so elongately described) do not have.

Those disadvantages are amgonst others:
- long flight time. You can "outrun" LRMS into cover. You can hardly do that with AC bullets and never with lasers.
- requiring locking time
- The combination of those two mean that adept players with proper cover can play in a way that makes them completely invulnerable to LRMs (yes, invulnerable)
- requiring a lockabel target (i.e. ECM helps against LRMs. It does not so much against direct fire weapons)
- There is AMS. Now even with unlimitted ammo.

So in short:
LRMs are just another weapon system with unique characteristics. Advantages and disadvantages.
Just like lasers, PPCs, ACs, Gauss, flamer, MGs, energy or ammo, etc.
Depending on the sitaution, they CAN be the best weapon. They can also be the worst weapon. Mostly, they are the latter. Sometimes the prior.

My focus is it's problems at low tiers, not it's problem as a whole. It's "one sided" because it tackles a specific problem.

Because it being too effective at low tiers, is exactly why it can't get buffed to relevance, that's why PGI cannot address the disadvantages that you just enumerated. That's why they are mostly a disadvantage, and less likely an advantage -- to higher tiers.

Paigan, on 13 October 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

I hope that you understand that. Maybe write another 100 pages if you have to in order to reflect on it.
Preferably locally on your computer instead of wasting database space in the forums.

Really though, i understand all of those. But understand that we still have the LRMageddon tier, and that's what this idea is trying to address.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 13 October 2017 - 01:23 AM.

[Mechteric]

Lasers also don't require leading the target...

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

And i was talking about ATM as a whole, why it sucks versus LRMs, especially when this change occurs. If there weren't any minimum range, there would be an incentive to use ATM over LRMs.

Not true,
atms dont suck, you just need to use them right and should recognize that they have different uses then lrms or srms.

There are incentives to use atm over lrms:
longer range (not that much an intencive, but its sometimes nice that you can hit someone at 1100m with missles)
faster (!!!)
same damage at long range, more the shorter the range is (!)
easier to blindfire (!)
can be used under buildings and in tunnels (!!)

Min range is no problem, at 120m clrms will do nearly no damage and is-lrms will do zero damage,
without min. range atms would be overpowered.

But i use them together with lrms,
because i can hit enemys with lrms where i cant hit them with atms,
and if you time it right, the enemys ams can eat some lrms and your atms will still hit.

No skill involved to time two weapons with different speeds and different balistictrajectories to hit the same target at nearly the same time.

Edited by Kroete, 13 October 2017 - 04:35 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 13 October 2017 - 04:27 AM, said:

Not true,
atms dont suck, you just need to use them right and should recognize that they have different uses then lrms or srms.

Nope, they suck.

It's because of that minimum range. The HE ammo is supposed to have no minimum range, thereby the ATM is useable upclose, and unlike LRMs you don't get ****** by minimum range -- but unfortunately you got ****** harder.

I get that they are useable above 120m, but here's the thing we're not exactly talking about performance, we're talking about roles. QK is saying that because LRMs are now effective at direct-fire because of the straight fire, ATMs may have been screwed rolewise. To which i say, they were screwed to begin with because minimum range.

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 October 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

That said, firing ATMs kinda sucks right now because of this and it's not really something I'm keen on seeing if direct fire suffers the same trajectory and such.

It's not my fault PGI screwed ATMs with that minimum range. They had a perfectly good chance to define roles, and they ******* blew it. I'd rather have them fix the ATM instead of have LRM not have the change that has a chance to improve it.

I'm not talking about range, I'm talking about the missile flight path. They don't correct like LRMs do (or they just didn't up the agility of the missile to match the velocity).

And i was talking about ATM as a whole, why it sucks versus LRMs, especially when this change occurs. If there weren't any minimum range, there would be an incentive to use ATM over LRMs.

Do you understand it? If you're gonna butt in someone else's conversation, the least you could do is actually understand where the two is coming from, don't just read one quote out of context.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

It irks me when people say LRMs need skill, they don't. Though some people still manage to screw them up by not holding their cursor over the brackets to hold their lock or firing into buildings that shield the target

The number of times I have to avoid facekeyboarding watching lurmtaters doing everything wrong under the sun tells me skill is definitely required.

There's about zero skill firing an LRM. Hitting with one?

There's a reason the average hitrate for them is in the mid-30s. Every shot is a prediction that your target is in LOS and your missiles get there before something goes wrong, especially IDF mode which is relying on a blind shot that you can only mostly predict potential blocking terrain, all while hoping the guy who R keyed didn't flinch. Which is one reason why a skilled missile lobber loathes backfield hiders- they're like a quarterback hurling hail-mary passes constantly, expecting hits.

Skill in LRMs is in minimizing the odds of a broken lock or a shot to cover, and being able to read those odds constantly across multiple potential targets, including minimizing the time between successful locks, all while trying to position to improve those odds, but of course all of your targets are moving as well.

Given the average player, is it any wonder they're bad at that? The average sad PUG has the situational awareness of a rock, tunnel vision, and will ignore a sweet and easy target if they already have a lock on the guy huddled behind a building, listening to the missile rain patter off the roof.

[The6thMessenger]

UPDATE:
- Fire And Forget requires sustained Target Lock -- but not Missile Lock
- Missile Velocity: +80 (to 240 m/s)
- Missile HP + 33.3333%
- Break-Away Distance: Now Affects Arc
- Break-Away Distance: 160m

Vote here: https://mwomercs.com...ork-trickshots/

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 October 2017 - 02:29 AM.

[oldradagast]

Vellron2005, on 12 October 2017 - 01:27 AM, said:

it irks me to no end that people think that LRMs are a "no skill weapon".

Me, too. The MWO communities somehow simultaneously believes that LRM's are a "no skill weapon that allows for easy kills that aren't fair," while at the same time believing that "LRM's are worthless and only stupid noobs play them." Yes, both of those beliefs contradict each other and cannot be true, but this is the internet, so such "reasoning" is typical.

The reality is they are easy to use if you just want a splattering of damage with little accomplished, but rather hard to use well. They are also generally not worth the effort to use, particularly at higher levels of play, which is why you rarely even see LRM's used by high skill teams or groups.

Edited by oldradagast, 15 October 2017 - 05:51 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

oldradagast, on 15 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

Me, too. The MWO communities somehow simultaneously believes that LRM's are a "no skill weapon that allows for easy kills that aren't fair," while at the same time believing that "LRM's are worthless and only stupid noobs play them." Yes, both of those beliefs contradict each other and cannot be true.

They're not easy to kill with, they're really inefficient at doing meaningful damage due to that spread.

I don't say that they are "no-skill" weapon, i said that their hit-chance is largely affected by the skill of the target to evade the volley, than the lurmer's skill -- that means it relies more on the targets being bad than lrmer being good, and that is consistent with what we see in the lower tiers.

oldradagast, on 15 October 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

The reality is they are easy to use if you just want a splattering of damage with little accomplished, but rather hard to use well. They are also generally not worth the effort to use, particularly at higher levels of play, which is why you rarely even see LRM's used by high skill teams or groups.

Yes, it's easy to use, but hard to use well against good opponents, but bad opponents are cakewalk. That results in the low levels of play being easy to use over one another with good result, but on high levels of play they are hard to use on one another with good result -- essentially the lurmageddon-tier.

Under examination, i found that it's about the homing system, and everything else just follows. Something has to be addressed, and this is the best I got -- this is how one could put skill into homing weapons.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 October 2017 - 01:56 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

The6thMessenger, on 15 October 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

I don't say that they are "no-skill" weapon, i said that their hit-chance is largely affected by the skill of the target to evade the volley, than the lurmer's skill

Yes, it's easy to use, but hard to use well against good opponents, but bad opponents are cakewalk.

I was going to mention that idea of target skill, but it doesn't only apply to LRMs, basically all lasers effectiveness is altered by the skill of the player you are shooting too, similarly with burst fire ACs and the like, more skilled targets will make your job much harder.

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 15 October 2017 - 06:03 AM, said:

I was going to mention that idea of target skill, but it doesn't only apply to LRMs, basically all lasers effectiveness is altered by the skill of the player you are shooting too, similarly with burst fire ACs and the like, more skilled targets will make your job much harder.

To be fair, positioning is something of a skill. Not getting locked on is part of it. That cumulative survival skill, be it side-winder, or just going cover to cover of your target.That affects the ability to hit LRMs more than you actually landing a shot than Lasers, ACs, or ppcs that you can just shoot on demand versus one that needs constant stare.

0.375s to 1.5s of missile lock + (distance / 160m/s) which at 400m is at 2.5s + 0.375s of tag + artemis -- at the same distance, an ac10 can do instant shot and land 10 damage at 0.421s after travel time, the LL can do 9 damage under 1.10s hit-scan too.

We ourselves are consciously minimizing our exposures -- something that doesn't mix well with the LRM's exposure time, either as someone whose the target or the shooter. That immense time it takes to land is what makes the LRM a lot more reliable when an enemy is making mistakes of long-exposures, of them over extending, than us actually the one making the mistake overextending which is a lot less safer on our part -- and sure as hell poor positioning, that is common to low-levels of play, is why LRMs work despite their current drawbacks, and that ease of use is not helping.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 October 2017 - 12:59 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

The6thMessenger, on 15 October 2017 - 05:59 AM, said:

They're not easy to kill with, they're really efficient at doing meaningful damage due to that spread.

I think you mean "....really inefficient at doing meaningful damage due to that spread."

[Asym]

OP, you did a lot of good work and spent a bit of time thinking this through.

I respectfully believe that LRMs/ATMs/SRM need to be reverted to their most dangerous states....
Not because " I " don't have skill; but rather, I didn't join MWO to participate in an individual FPS game and I want to be a support player on a team......(even if it is a "potato team" that has fun!)

What is really going on is the struggle between those who want:
a traditional FPS two dimensional battlespace;
and,
those who want a 3 dimensional battlespace that includes weapons that are more than LOS.

One wants a me against you: facing each other and shooting till someone wins.

The others want "teams" of effort combining all aspects of weapons: ballastic and energy direct fire, all varieties of smart weapons and all varieties of indirect fire.

Role warfare (us or we) versus individual warfare (I).

If you don't like LRMs/ATMs/SRMs you are in the wrong game...................sorry.

[Vellron2005]

Asym, on 15 October 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

If you don't like LRMs/ATMs/SRMs you are in the wrong game...................sorry.

THIS, so much this..

People need to stop treating MWO like COD or Unreal Tournament.. it's not a standard FPS..nor should it be..

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 16 October 2017 - 01:44 AM, said:

THIS, so much this..

People need to stop treating MWO like COD or Unreal Tournament.. it's not a standard FPS..nor should it be..

Yep, true.

This idea isn't about turning the MWO into another COD or UT though -- honestly with the complicated locking system, homing system and missile trajectory that allows trick shots, it would really take a lot of information AND skill to use it effectively - it wouldn't be fit on a run and gun.

[C E Dwyer]

LRM5's and lrm10's don't have much spread.

LRM15 and 20 do.

This is why we have this idiotic Artemis nerf coming into play.

Because most people that understand LRM's rather than those that boat them because they can't shoot straight, know their weak points, and when they can be useful, don't use 20 at all and rarely use 15's and only with mostly with artemis.

This Artemis nerf is actually only going to hurt the bad users of LRM's discourage the newbies, and make the Atlas even less viable, but i'm getting side tracked.

The biggest 'issue' at newb tiers, and the only reason they're Q.P viable higher, is that the game mechanic doesn't take into account how many clusters of missiles your sensors can guide in flight at one time.

You just get a lock, and spam until you over heat in a newbs case, or lose lock, the only restriction on you is rate of fire.

This is why you get lots of LRM 5 boats.

A much simpler system would be to increase cool down on small launchers and/or limit the number of launchers that can be fired at one time, similar to gauss mechanic's.

This discourages boating and extreme builds like B33fs LRM 100 heh, and helps make the larger launcher more viable, a maximum of 40 missiles in the air, with two LRM 20 launchers opposed to 10 missiles with two LRM 5's.

This might even encourage newbs and bad shots to actually put useful weapons on their mech's when they realise four lrm 10 launchers are pointless, so they have something to fight with when they get caught at the back by a non viable nerfed ML light mech

[The6thMessenger]

Cathy, on 16 October 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

The biggest 'issue' at newb tiers, and the only reason they're Q.P viable higher, is that the game mechanic doesn't take into account how many clusters of missiles your sensors can guide in flight at one time.

I don't get this part, yes the LRM5 and LRM20 do have the same "Incoming Missile", but how does that explain the negatively correlated vulnerability to LRMs with skill?

I get why they would be scared, but I don't get why LRMs are more effective at low-skill targets and less effective at high-skill targets. That doesn't fit with the model that we see.

Cathy, on 16 October 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

You just get a lock, and spam until you over heat in a newbs case, or lose lock, the only restriction on you is rate of fire.

This is why you get lots of LRM 5 boats.

A much simpler system would be to increase cool down on small launchers and/or limit the number of launchers that can be fired at one time, similar to gauss mechanic's.

I kinda had an idea about that too, of increasing both cooldown and damage, to put better significance of each volley, and make players lurm with better thought and skill applied. But that's only half of it, that only explains the vulnerability of the inexperienced to suppression/scare tactic.

LRM5s are one thing, they aren't even the things i consider to be much of a threat. It's those with 4x LRM15-LRM20s like Supernova and Maulers that i'm pissed off with, they don't even put arty on those.

Cathy, on 16 October 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

This discourages boating and extreme builds like B33fs LRM 100 heh, and helps make the larger launcher more viable, a maximum of 40 missiles in the air, with two LRM 20 launchers opposed to 10 missiles with two LRM 5's.

Or make low-tube launchers a bit more effective in terms of hybrid builds -- perhaps a 2x LRM10A + 2x ERML Timberwolf?

Cathy, on 16 October 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

This might even encourage newbs and bad shots to actually put useful weapons on their mech's when they realise four lrm 10 launchers are pointless, so they have something to fight with when they get caught at the back by a non viable nerfed ML light mech.

I doubt that. LRM spam is one thing, but the idiotically dangerous is actually those running 4x LRM15 or 4x LRM20s -- it allows them to maximize the indirect fire and reliance at homing. After all what use could they possibly get with direct-fire weapons they wouldn't use because they don't intend to be close enough? Of course they'd get the largest LRMs, hence we see idiots with maulers that runs 4x LRM15s.

Had you ever encountered a lurmboat with NO backup weapons? Really cringey those, worse than LRM5 spam.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 October 2017 - 03:41 AM.

[Lykaon]

Why do you have such a hate on for LRMs?

It doesn't mater if tier 5 players are slaughtered in droves by LRMs because the skilled players rank out of the low tier because they adapt and develope defensive strategies.

The only players who constantly suffer are the hopelessly untalented and they suffer under fire from ANY WEAPON not just LRMs.

I think we can all agree that LRMs are the most easily countered weapon in the entire game. So players who fail to learn even a minimal amount of counters are just inept.

Balancing for the inept results in a weapon that is useless when used against players of even moderate skill.

I am also going to point out that sure comparing a LRM lock to an AC lead shot may on the surface look like a skill dispairity but, the skill level for basic results seems about right.

Let's compare...

AC10 vs LRM20

DPS AC10 is 4.00 LRM20 is 4.65

Tonnage 12 tons for the AC10 and10 tons LRM20

Shots per ton 20 for the AC10 and 9 for the LRM20

Range: 450m optimal 900m extreme range for AC10 and 900m max range with a 180m min range for the LRM20

Heat per shot 2.75 AC10 LRM20 is 6.00

These two weapon systems seem pretty close on paper DPS and size and all that falls into a similar range.

But experienced players know what the actual effects of these weapons are in actual game play.

The AC10 is not effected by ECM,radar derp or AMS.

The AC10 front loads all it's damage to a singular target point

The AC10 needs to lead a target to hit it under most circumstances

Proficient use of an AC10 has an approximate hit rate of 70%+

The LRM20 is effected by ECM radar derp and AMS

LRMs diffuse damage on impact

LRM20s in particular almost never land 100% projectiles on target leading to an actual DPS that is much lower than it's "on paper" stats

LRMs require a lock that results in a delay in capacity to reaction fire or optimize cover use when direct fire is employed.This leads to fewer opertunities to fire on average.

LRMS must retain the lock for the entire duration of the volley's flight time to maximize damage combined with missile launch warinings and 160 mps velocity of LRMs means frequent missed shots dispite having attained a lock before firing.

Proficient use of LRMs has an average hit ratio of under 50%.

So, While it is harder to lead a target and hit them with the AC than lock a target with an LRM launcher the AC user is granted several advantages to compensate for the dispairity.

And then there is laser vomit...that is literally place the pixel on the other pixel and mash alpha strike. No leading just simple very basic hand eye coordination that a trained pigeon can succeed at doing.

Entry skill level is compensated by granting direct results for use of the weapons. It's easier for a lock to be attained than hitting a leading target but the AC weapon is far more effective in nearly every way.

So if autocannons are to difficult for someone just build a laser vomit mech it's far more effective than LRMs and in my opinion the easiest weapon systems to use in the whole game....point click...point click...point click...coolant...point click...