136 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

In the light of another thread about LRMs and removing indirect fire, i came to realize that why the LRM is bad on the lower-skill tier isn't even about indirect fire, it's about the homing system.

And before you start, no this is NOT about why LRMs are bad as a whole. Though I along with other people think that it's bad already, no need to kick it while it's down. This simply tries to address the issue on the lower tiers where the lurmageddon happens. Whether you think that the LRM is a bad weapon an in need of buff/rework, or it's already a good and workable weapon -- despite being not used in Comp and more of a liability in the higher tier, the lurmageddon-tier still stands, and under scrutiny, the homing system is the culprit.

The spirit of the fix is this:

Spoiler

I'll elaborate:

Imagine a moving mech at a distance away preferably 600 meter, to hit said mech means that the shooter of the AC would put an adequate lead, and it's hit or miss would be hinged on the shooter's skill -- and will higher skill means higher chance of hit, lower skill would be lower chance of it.

And then suppose that you yourself is a distance away, same 600 meter and some enemy is shooting you of the same AC. Granted 100% skill that the enemy could reliably lead a shot at you -- with enough skill you can evade it, say by sidewinder, simply stopping, or going to light cover.

At both scenarios, skills has so much factor depending on the success of the hit-chance of your AC. At LRMs however, not so much.

Imagine a moving mech at a distance away, same 600 meters. With homing system, you don't need to put adequate lead, you just need to launch your LRMs and retain sight, and the LRMs will land so long as you have a clear view and the LRM has a clear path.

If you were on the other side with LRMs on your way, you can't just evade this like normal shells, you have to break LOS, and it depends more to luck if you found an adequate cover to do so. Or never had been lurmed in the first place -- which is correlated with positioning skills.

This presents a problem; making the hit-chance negatively correlated with skill, and the weapon itself is different to other weapons that it hinges not on shooting skills, but positioning skills. And thus we see the problem of the lurmageddon tier.

I would argue is that what we need to make the LRMs' hit chance depended less on the skill of the user more than the enemy's mistakes.

As for the Idea:

I think it would be prudent to tackle how the LRMs track, that how we launch them would affect their hit-rate greatly -- that means to achieve optimal performance should worry on how we sent them to the sky. And to simplify my idea, i will break it down to steps.

Quote

Step 1: Fire and Forget

LRMs don't need constant missile lock or target lock. You just need those to launch a missile, and retain the target lock with anyone in the team.

Quote

Step 2: Manual Missile Locking System

Remember Gauss? How you charge it? The same thing with the LRMs somewhat. To missile-lock, not only you must have target-lock, you need to press the fire button. However the missiles aren't launched when you press the trigger, it's when you release it.

You can have the missile-lock retained at an indefinite time even if you're no longer aiming at the target so long as you have target-lock, and is pressing the fire trigger. To disengage, simply break lock, and the LRMs wouldn't launch.

This system allows missle-lock while still pointing at some place else as you adjust the launch of your missiles. Think of it as a bow that you release the string to shoot.

This also reduces the spamability of LRMs since you have to reacquire the missile lock every time you fire, that it prevents effective automatic Chain-Firing -- you have to do that manually yourself.

> TAG has a per-volley spread reduction than having to retain the beam over the target for the entire duration to utilize the bonus. That means you only need to put the beam to reduce the missile-lock, but once the missile is locked you can turn off the TAG and the missile shot out would have lower initial missile spread.
> NARC has an active spread reduction, this means that if the NARC dies midflight then the missile spread readjusts back.
> ARTEMIS has an active spread reduction, this means that you need to retain LOS at ALL TIMES to maintain spread, else the missile spread readjusts back.
> You can shoot without lock, but the LRMs would just go straight to your point of aim.

Quote

Step 3: Manual Hyperbolic Arc by Poor Steering - Trick-Shots FTW!

Have you ever noticed how the LRMs are FORCED to go up, and then on the peak of the arc, and THEN the homing kicks.

My idea does away with that, the LRMs now fly straight, and will home on the target at the start of the shot -- ALL THE TIME. However, while it homes to targets, it has poor steering to correct the flight-path, and would literally take a half-circle trajectory when fired at 90 degrees elevation. It's limited at 90 degrees of launch, else if it's above it then the LRMs wouldn't launch.

Think of it as gravity with a shell shot on the sky, the higher you aim the sharper the angle you achieve and the higher the arc, but it's attracted to your target than the the ground. The higher the arc, the longer the missiles take to their intended target, as well as the shorter their range is since the hyperbolic path is longer than the straight path. You shoot up and a bit to the side, the flight-path would be an angled arc.

This means that for indirect-fire to occur, one must shoot to the sky, or direct fire to occur to shoot straight. This also means that at a farther range the arc-ing fire would have better hit chance, while also the closer the range the straight-fire would have better hit-chance.

According to math, and this calculator: http://www.1728.org/circsect.htm , that means the maximum height of any volley is 1/2 of the target distance -- if that target is 600 meters away then the maximum height is 300m at 90 degree launch, at 60 degrees would be 200m, and at 30 degrees is 100 meters.

That means at a target of 600m away, launching at 90 degrees would yield 942.48 meters or 342.48m extra, 60 degrees would have 764.4m or extra 164.4m, or at 30 degrees would yield 643.5 meters or 43.5m extra. And because the length is longer, so the travel time is longer -- that's the inherent drawback of using indirect fire.

Depending on how you launched it, it can also steer around obstacles like a boomerang, hitting targets from unlikely angles. If it misses, it also spirals around your target till it hits anything. That also means that with Clan LRMs being stream-fired, you can make them land in such a way that they will land "at the same time".

This also allows you to have benefits with target leading -- as sending the volley ahead would mean it would land faster, than if you send it and it has to chase the target.



Simulating target leading, just apply the arc differently, that instead of the arc going up and down from the sky, it also goes side-to-side, and you can make the LRMs land faster in advance.

Quote

Step 4: Specific Stats:

Maximum Range: 1000m (because hyperbolic arc is actually longer in distance, using LRMs at an angle results in relatively shorter range)
Damage: +50% (1.5 damage/missile)
Spread: 4.0 (Normalized to that of LRM5s)
Cooldown: +33.3334% (fires slower) + 1.5s of missile-lock.
ECM Lock Penalty: 50%
Velocity: +80 (to 240)
Missile Health: -33.3333% (to compensate for AMS and faster velocity)
Ammo/ton: - 33.3334% (Less Ammo - to 120 ammo/ton)
Maximum Angle: 90 degrees

So, what do you think of this homing system? Does it finally give the LRMs the need for skill-to-effectiveness ratio? Any specific stats i need to readjust?

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

CHANGES:
- Removed Breakaway Distance

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 October 2017 - 02:16 AM.

[Vellron2005]

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

For LRMs to be effective, you actually need quite a bit of skill.. Sure, once you get a lock, you just press a button and your LRMs hit.. or do they?

Here's a quick rundown of how and why LRMs require LOTS of skill:

1) Firstly, to be effective with LRMs, you need to know how to position yourself. A few meters or a single mech's step can mean the difference from hitting the target with impunity, or loosing lock and hitting a rock.

2) The "leading the target" part of firing direct fire weapons is very much akin to "Bending LRMs" - a practice where you stand in full cover, lock your target and then flick your cursor to make the LRMs go around the cover. Its a high-skill practice, and a hallmark of a good LRM user.

3) LRMs have 10-ish hard counters. Learning how to get around them all is very skill-oriented.

4) The indirect nature of LRMs can be a hindrance in many situations, especially when under a platform or in a tunnel. Learning to get around this and be good even on such maps requires lots of skill.

5) LRMs are a support/suppression weapon. Learning when to use them and when not to requires a great deal of skill. Target triage is a skill in itself.

6) Learning how to shoot LRMs over your teammate and not hit them in the back in crowded tight spaces is also a skill one must learn.

7) LRM-boating also requires some survival skills. You are limited in your choice of ranged engagements, so positioning is once again - key. You can't just choose to shoot all your lasers / ppc / gauss / AC's close in instead of at the optimal range. You are fooked in short range brawls. Getting out of such situations (and not finding oneself in one in the first place) is a must-have skill for a LRM boat.

8) Also, when you do get rushed, there are many things a LRM boat can do to increase his survival odds. Learning these skills is essential for a LRM user. They don't always work, but they do increase your chances overwhelmingly.

As you can see, using LRMs, and especially boating them, requires LOTS of skill..

Sure, you could argue that positioning is important for any weapon system, but for LRMs positioning is completely different and specific to that playstyle while non-LRM positioning works for most direct fire.

In conclusion:

LRMs DO NOT need a rework, do not need buffs or nerfs.. people just need to learn how to use them and stop treating them as a fire-and-forget "noob tube" weapon.

As an affirmation that all I have stated is true - My own scores with LRM boats are such that more often than not, I have more damage (sometimes even double the damage) than any other person in my team, or even in the whole drop (friend or foe), and it's usually backed up by KMDDs, and often with kills.

If a person using ballistics or lasers has 1K+ damage and 3 kills, he's a T1 God, but if a LRM boat has 1K+ damage, 3 kills and KMDDS to back them up, he's a LRM noob, using a bad weapon system that needs to be reworked?

Think again..

Edited by Vellron2005, 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM.

[A Man In A Can]

Step 1: Basic missile mechanics every 'nam flight sim player can understand. That also leave room for Streak LRMs due to your other steps. I approve.
Step 2: While entertaining to think of LRMs as arrows with this mechanic, I'm not sure if the system needs it considering the other shifts you're proposing. What is your reasoning for it? To raise its skill floor so spuds stay away from it? To pair the LRM "arrows" with a tactile bow and arrow effect to justify increased velocity? Not attacking, just curious.
Step 3: Yup. MW4 Long Tom mechanics with very light homing naturally. Timing that angle-up before the lock dissipates will be important. Might even reward launchers in the arms as they have higher arcs than torsos. I feel this is the way to go for long term (pun intended) satisfaction with the weapon, even on the receiving end.
Step 4: Cool, but might be to much math for PGI to code. I applaud the thought though.
Step 5: McGral or other spreadsheet warriors would give you better specifics, but definitely in the right direction with the above shifts.

Now....how do the other mechanics come into play? Shared locks? Yellow locks - are they used to denote the weapon is out of range? How long will locks last in order to ballistic arc LRMs, or do you just fling them into the general direction and they do it on their own a la Worms homing missiles? How about Artemis? Ye olde TAG/Narc? What about Ali Baba and his list of 40 LRM counters? How do you imagine a 1v1 with these LRMs and any other current meta mech unfolding?

Just some things to think about.

[Kroete]

If the homing kicks in at launch, and has poor steering you cant hit anything behind an obstacle, launching upwards would still hit the obstacle. Try atms and think about that your "idea" would have less homing then atm.
Lrms need a ballistic curve to make them different from atms.

About evading, with direct fire you need to lead to the y axis, missles need to calculate for x & y, hitting someone with direct fire is a lot easier then using lrms without locks.

About stats:
Yeah, we have now hybrid atm/mrms, but for what? Is there any scenario where your new lrms would have any use over mrms or atms?

And what do you think to do with tag, narc, ams, ecm and radarcrutch?

[The6thMessenger]

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".

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.

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.

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

As an affirmation that all I have stated is true

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

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

If the homing kicks in at launch, and has poor steering you cant hit anything behind an obstacle, launching upwards would still hit the obstacle. Try atms and think about that your "idea" would have less homing then atm.
Lrms need a ballistic curve to make them different from atms.

Again, think of gravity and how artillery shells arc when fired up. Same thing with my suggestion, only it's not attracted by gravity and into the ground, but to the target. It's kind of ballistic, also like a boomerang if you also shot it from side to side.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

About evading, with direct fire you need to lead to the y axis, missles need to calculate for x & y, hitting someone with direct fire is a lot easier then using lrms without locks.

Not necessarily with it's low projectile speed, you have locks to compensate. Not to mention that we don't exactly calculate to make a ppc-bolt or ac-shell lead, we just have a practiced guess, so just guess with LRM trajectory could be just with skill as well.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

Yeah, we have now hybrid atm/mrms, but for what? Is there any scenario where your new lrms would have any use over mrms or atms?

ATMs are direct-fire only and has heavier close-range damage. IS don't have ATMs. And this new LRMs not only is not ****** for direct fire, it still works for indirect fire. That means while ATMs are offensive, LRMs are supportive.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

And what do you think to do with tag, narc, ams, ecm and radarcrutch?

Reduced lock on speed with ECM, TAG decreases spread, NARC allows indirect fire without any other mech targetting it for you AND decreases spread. I don't know what radarcrutch is.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Step 2: While entertaining to think of LRMs as arrows with this mechanic, I'm not sure if the system needs it considering the other shifts you're proposing. What is your reasoning for it? To raise its skill floor so spuds stay away from it? To pair the LRM "arrows" with a tactile bow and arrow effect to justify increased velocity? Not attacking, just curious.

Not necessarily -- it's there to make way for the fire-and-forget system, and at the same time be able to missile lock while actually aiming somewhere else so you can lead the missiles.

If we have to maintain the lock at all times, it's problematic aiming somewhere to instigate an arc cause you might break missile lock when you aim someplace else other than your target.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Step 3: Yup. MW4 Long Tom mechanics with very light homing naturally. Timing that angle-up before the lock dissipates will be important. Might even reward launchers in the arms as they have higher arcs than torsos. I feel this is the way to go for long term (pun intended) satisfaction with the weapon, even on the receiving end.

Center-piece of my suggestion really, because it's how you put more need of skill on a homing projectile.

As for torso-launchers though, not really a good idea considering that it will completely prevent indirect fire to mechs that has horrible torso pitch. Yes LRM Atlas is so bad, but it's not like we shouldn't prevent it either. Targeting would be at the arm reticle to prevent that.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Shared locks?

Works kind of simmilar. Although if you haven't fired your missiles when the target locks dissipate, you can't shoot your missiles, and you have to reacquire lock for both.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Yellow locks - are they used to denote the weapon is out of range?

Perhaps, i don't know. This idea is just bare-bones, specifics like that would probably just arise later on a need-to-implement basis.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

How long will locks last in order to ballistic arc LRMs?

Fire-and-Forget, you just shoot them and you forget, no retained missile lock or target lock needed. You can retain the missile-lock, and still not have your reticle over the target, so long as the fire-button is held or you have target lock.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

do you just fling them into the general direction and they do it on their own a la Worms homing missiles?

Yes, but you have to launch them in a way like field-artillery, basically like homing missile of worms but there's already a thrust in the first part before actually homing -- the missile only needs to correct itself and overcome the momentum towards the initial direction of flight. Think of them as boomerangs instead.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

How about Artemis?

Works normally; reduces lock-on time, reduces initial spread, increases launchers by 1 ton and 1 slot, and uses custom ammo.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Ye olde TAG/Narc?

Works normally; TAG simply reduces lock-on time and reduces initial spread. However the reduced-spread is applied per volley, not actively the entire course of a volley's lifetime. That means you can TAG to initiate Missile lock, but regardless if TAG is still applied to a target or not, that missiles you readied to fire will still have reduced initial spread. NARC still provides vision, and shared lock, but also reduces missile spread.

ThatNumbGuy, on 12 October 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

What about Ali Baba and his list of 40 LRM counters? How do you imagine a 1v1 with these LRMs and any other current meta mech unfolding?

Not yet heard of that, but AMS would work fine, cover would work fine too, ecm would still slow missile lock on, or prevent locking at all. etc.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 03:04 AM.

[Kroete]

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

Again, think of gravity and how artillery shells arc when fired up. Same thing with my suggestion, only it's not attracted by gravity and into the ground, but to the target. It's kind of ballistic.

If the homing kicks with launch, the direct way to target is trough an obstacle. There is no ballistic curve if they cant get enough high.

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

Not necessarily, you have locks. Not to mention that we don't exactly calculate to make a ppc-bolt or ac-shell lead, we just have a practiced guess.

Ballistic trajectorie hit at a spot, laser and even ballistics hit as a"beam",
you have 4 directions to evade ballistic trajectories, but only 2 for direct fire.

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

ATMs are direct-fire only and has heavier close-range damage. IS don't have ATMs. And this new LRMs not only is not ****** for direct fire, it still works for indirect fire. That means while ATMs are offensive, LRMs are supportive.

Not true,
i use them often to hit enemys behind small obstacles or slopes,
but i also use lrms to hit enemys where i cant hit them with atms.
And i use both indirect over uav or allys locks, direct with my own locks and also withoutout locks.

Your suggestion sounds like the lrms would then behave like atms in flightpath.
Or do you want to change atms too?

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

Reduced lock on speed with ECM, TAG decreases spread, NARC allows indirect fire without any other mech targetting it for you AND decreases spread. I don't know what radarcrutch is.

You mean increase lockspeed against ecm (no radarange reduce anymore) ?
Tag only reduce spread? Not locktimereduce anymore? Why do you want to nerf tag, the los tool for missiles?
And the poor narc you want to nerf too? No ecm counter, no locktime reduce anymore?
Artemis?

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

Not yet heard of that, but AMS would work fine, cover would work fine too, ecm would still slow missile lock on, or prevent locking at all. etc.

AMS effect would be reduce by more then 50% against your new lrms.
Dont know if ams would work fine with that nerf against them?

Maybe play a little with lrms and atms and then think again?

Edited by Kroete, 12 October 2017 - 02:46 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

If the homing kicks with launch, the direct way to target is trough an obstacle. There is no ballistic curve if they cant get enough high.

Again, it's homing is like gravity. Think of a mortar shot in the sky, and it goes back down at an angle, circumventing the obstacle. It's not going to go straight immediately, but it is attracted to the target, causing it to correct it's flight-path and try to overcome the momentum at the initial direction it's shot at. i.e. if a shell was shot on the sky, then it goes back down.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Ballistic trajectorie hit at a spot, laser and even ballistics hit as a"beam",
you have 4 directions to evade ballistic trajectories, but only 2 for direct fire.

wat?

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Not true,
i use them often to hit enemys behind small obstacles or slopes,
but i also use lrms to hit enemys where i cant hit them with atms.

Yeah, small obstacles. Not large ones.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Your suggestion sounds like the lrms would then behave like atms in flightpath.

Wrong, the user do. How acute the arc is modulated by how far you deviated your reticle from the target from when you released the missiles.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

You mean increase lockspeed against ecm (no radarange reduce anymore) ?

No, it's lock-on speed, not lock-on time. Your lock on time is increased, when your lock-on speed is decreased.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Tag only reduce spread? Not locktimereduce anymore? Why do you want to nerf tag, the los tool for missiles? And the poor narc you want to nerf too?

No, still reduces lock on time too.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Artemis?

Still does +1 ton and slot for launchers, uses more expensive ammo, has reduced initial spread and lock-on time when you have LOS.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

AMS effect would be reduce by more then 50% against your new lrms.

I don't get it. Can i assume that because of increased velocity, AMS has it worse? We can always reduce LRM health and compensate for the speed.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Dont know if ams would work fine with that nerf against them?

Honestly, no. This is just an idea being thrown around, i don't know how exactly it will work when implemented. But it does achieve the goal of including more skill to LRMs.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 02:37 AM, said:

Maybe play a little with lrms and atms and then think again?

No.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 03:05 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

Again, it's homing is like gravity. Think of a mortar shot in the sky, and it goes back down at an angle, circumventing the obstacle. It's not going to go straight immediately, but it is attracted to the target, causing it to correct it's flight-path and try to overcome the momentum at the initial direction it's shot at. i.e. if a shell was shot on the sky, then it goes back down.

You should realy play some lrms and atms if you want to change something,
at least you should know how the mwo missilehoming works.

Then you would know that there will be no ballistic trajectory if they will correct their course (start homing) at launch, they have no time to get the high and will go directly to the target.

Dont talk about overcomming a momentum if there is no physics involved in the calculations they use.

Homing missiles fly straight and at some times (4? 5? if i remember right) during their flight, they change their course to the target, the turning radius was nerfed because they did 180 degree turns in the old times,
was fun to backcore others from the front with them.

Edited by Kroete, 12 October 2017 - 03:15 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

You should realy play some lrms and atms if you want to change something,
at least you should know how the mwo missilehoming works.

Implying that i don't know how MWO missile homing works. No i actually do, I have played LRMs, i've watched LRMs curve in mid-air.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

Then you would know that there will be no ballistic trajectory if they will correct their course (start homing) at launch, they have no time to get the high and will go directly to the target.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

Dont talk about overcomming a momentum if there is no physics involved in the calculations they use.

I was referencing real world physics so you can understand how the fight-path correction works.

Dum-dum, i specifcally changed the homing behavior by the start.

The6thMessenger, on 11 October 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

"Have you ever noticed how the LRMs are FORCED to go up, and then on the peak of the arc, and THEN the homing kicks.

My idea does away with that, the LRMs now fly straight, and will home on the target at the start of the shot -- ALL THE TIME. However, while it homes to targets, it has poor steering to correct the flight-path."

Poor steering meaning it doesn't immediately readjust and go straight the target that it creates sharp turns, it has to overcome the momentum of it's initial direction, thus creating the arc as it correct itself. It doesn't immediately just turn at an angle.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

Homing missiles fly straight and at some times (4? 5? if i remember right) during their flight, they change their course to the target, the turning radius was nerfed because they did 180 degree turns in the old times,
was fun to backcore others from the front with them.

And again, i have specified that how the homing in my idea works, and it works differently.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 03:23 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

And again, i have specified that how the homing in my idea works, and it works differently.

To hit a target behind a small obstacle i need to inclean my atms at max to get the needed high,
with lrms i can fire straight and they get the needed high to overcome,
if i incline my lrms i can hit targets at higher obstacles or elevation then atms.

Your suggestion would make lrms like atms in flight trajectory and would remove most of their ballistic usement.


How much course correctur degrees should lrms have and how often should it happen?

Edited by Kroete, 12 October 2017 - 03:42 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

To hit a target behind a small obstacle i need to incline my atms at max to get the needed high,
with lrms i can fire straight and they get the needed high to overcome,
if i incline my lrms i can hit targets at higher obstacles or elevation then atms.

Your suggestion would make lrms like atms in flight trajectory and would remove most of their ballistic usement.

Depends on how you use them. If you launch LRMs with a steep angle, then it could clear even higher obstacles. Likewise it doesn't come with good close-range damage. ATMs have better per-missile damage, and have different damage/range. And unlike LRMs that you have to pay attention how you launch them, ATMs less and mostly need only lock and shoot.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 12 October 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

Depends on how you use them. If you launch LRMs with a steep angle, then it could clear even higher obstacles. Likewise it doesn't come with good close-range damage. ATMs have better per-missile damage, and have different damage/range. And unlike LRMs that you have to pay attention how you launch them, ATMs less and mostly need only lock and shoot.

Lets say 30° course correctur?
If it hits the first time at launch, you need 30° + x to give them a trajectory,
is there any mech with torso+arms up to 75° do get 45° degree trajectory?

Not true about atms, the second launch from a lock needs often to be incleaned because the enemy retreats after the first hit.
And for indirect use of atms you need nearly allways max. incleaning.

And for every missile you need to pay attention, only if you sit back and try to empty your 2000+ missiles before a light kills you, you dont need it.

Edited by Kroete, 12 October 2017 - 03:59 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

Lets say 30° course correctur?
If it hits the first time at launch, you need 30° + x to give them a trajectory,
is there any mech with torso+arms up to 75° do get 45° degree trajectory?

The aim isn't hinged on the torso reticle, it's on the arm reticle. And many mechs have fairly wide arm angles.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

Not true about atms, the second launch from a lock needs often to be incleaned because the enemy retreats after the first hit.

Lol really? It doesn't work the second time, so not true? Ignoring that it worked the first time. And then there's also high walls like pillar, that prevents LRMs, why would you think it would work with ATMs?

Also it's with comparison with the new LRMs with new launch mechanics. Don't be silly, it's already a lot complicated don't bull **** us.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

And for indirect use of atms you need nearly allways max. incleaning.

It has a bit of angle, but it's not something that will easily clear obstacles and can provide indirect fire like LRMs do.

Kroete, on 12 October 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

And for every missile you need to pay attention, only if you sit back and try to empty your 2000+ missiles before a light kills you, you dont need it.

So what?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 02:22 PM.

[MechWarrior5152251]

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

[The6thMessenger]

MechWarrior5152251, on 12 October 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

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

And again, not saying that it uses no skill. Is that skill isn't necessarily what affects the ability of your LRMs to land as you launch it.

There's clear effect of this negative correlation, and it's the lurmageddon tier, and it's neglect at comp. Something has to be done.

[Rovertoo]

Wait, Im not sure I understand the idea. So, the average LRM shot would play out some thing like: I get a lock, I aim up to lob the missles over whatever obstacle, or around whatever obstacle, I let go of the trigger and the LRMs just arc around and hit the target? Do I understand that right? So aside from the fact that I now have control over the arc angle, do the LRMs behave any differently?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Without some sort of indicator as to your trajectory, this would be pretty bad to see happen, especially given that it makes mechs that can use indirect fire HAVE to have a good pitch angle to get good range. Not really keen on that, it was always problematic that you couldn't adjust the angle yourself in MW4 (especially since you couldn't move arms independently to get better pitch than you would otherwise).

I mean I suppose you could make the argument that pitch impacts direct fire as well, but the problem point is that this impacts both very differently.

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. I'd rather they make missiles hard by having to keep the reticle ON the mech to actually gain a lock rather than just in some box around it, that alone made missiles sometimes harder to use than direct fire in MW4 (also direct fire had faster velocities back then so that contributed too).

Still not a fan of increasing damage, if we are saying these will produce minimal spread thus gaining precision and that trajectory mechanics make them inaccurate, then I'd much rather they stay as is because for the tonnage (especially on the Clan side) they have some of the best damage capabilities of all weapons. I mean the IS LRM20 produces a little bit more DPS than 2 LL for less than the heat of one.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 October 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Burning2nd]

As someone who personally is responsible for lrm nerff's

I can show you how to do 2000 damage years ago

I can tell you your logic is flawed...

While ive been able to rebuild my A1-c In to a manor that reflects what lrms use to be able to do (and still be able to pull some strings) your understanding of what a LRM "boat" is and how it works are wrong..

you master a mech that has XL moves fast and only has LRM's and then you come back and call your self a "missile boat"

*ill slap the taste out fo your mouth



you dont understand the mechanics of this game

[The6thMessenger]

Rovertoo, on 12 October 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

Wait, Im not sure I understand the idea. So, the average LRM shot would play out some thing like: I get a lock, I aim up to lob the missles over whatever obstacle, or around whatever obstacle, I let go of the trigger and the LRMs just arc around and hit the target? Do I understand that right? So aside from the fact that I now have control over the arc angle, do the LRMs behave any differently?

They have "ballistically", but is attracted to the target than to the ground.

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

Without some sort of indicator as to your trajectory, this would be pretty bad to see happen, especially given that it makes mechs that can use indirect fire HAVE to have a good pitch angle to get good range. Not really keen on that, it was always problematic that you couldn't adjust the angle yourself in MW4 (especially since you couldn't move arms independently to get better pitch than you would otherwise).

Never said that it can't get a trajectory tracing line like that of Monster Hunter Bow, it's just a barebones idea. Then again AC Shells, Gauss Slugs, and PPC Bolts only have to work with guesses to hit with lead.

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

I mean I suppose you could make the argument that pitch impacts direct fire as well, but the problem point is that this impacts both very differently.

Thinking about it, the only difference i could perceive when arc is applied is the change of the time it takes to land, and the angle where the volley will impact the target; such as if you shot 60 degrees upward, then the LRMs would hit 60 degrees downward, but has a longer path. I don't see that much of a problem.

Works both direct fire and indirect fire, direct fire is advantageous because it lands faster, and could be an incentive.

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.

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

Still not a fan of increasing damage, if we are saying these will produce minimal spread thus gaining precision and that trajectory mechanics make them inaccurate, then I'd much rather they stay as is because for the tonnage (especially on the Clan side) they have some of the best damage capabilities of all weapons. I mean the IS LRM20 produces a little bit more DPS than 2 LL for less than the heat of one.

But why we wouldn't take them seriously is precisely because they are more likely to spread damage. Increasing damage while reducing the rate of fire puts a per-volley significance, that they had to put a bit more thought with each salvo, and be careful about it. It's not something you can just spam willy nilly. Besides, all the UI hurdle, but it doesn't do much?

Burning2nd, on 12 October 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

I can show you how to do 2000 damage years ago
I can tell you your logic is flawed...

But it's not years ago, it's now. And demonstrate.

Burning2nd, on 12 October 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

While ive been able to rebuild my A1-c In to a manor that reflects what lrms use to be able to do (and still be able to pull some strings) your understanding of what a LRM "boat" is and how it works are wrong..

It's not a boat, it's not about the build, it's about the behavior of LRMs, particularly how they land. It's irrelevant whether it's a boat, or it's a hybrid. But it follows that we have a negative correlation with skill and hit-chance, and that's because of the homing component.

Burning2nd, on 12 October 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

you master a mech that has XL moves fast and only has LRM's and then you come back and call your self a "missile boat"

*ill slap the taste out fo your mouth

you dont understand the mechanics of this game

And you don't even understand the suggestion.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 12 October 2017 - 03:23 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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

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).

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

Thinking about it, the only difference i could perceive when arc is applied is the change of the time it takes to land, and the angle where the volley will impact the target; such as if you shot 60 degrees upward, then the LRMs would hit 60 degrees downward. I don't see that much of a problem.

Works both direct fire and indirect fire, direct fire is advantageous because it lands faster, and could be an incentive.

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).

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?

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

But why we wouldn't take them seriously is precisely because they spread damage. Increasing damage while reducing the rate of fire puts a per-volley significance, that they had to put a bit more thought with each salvo, and be careful about it. It's not something you can just spam willy nilly. Besides, all the UI hurdle, but it doesn't do much?

LRM5s and the old LRM10s didn't spread damage near as much as people claimed. I used to play with Jman and his HBK-4J and those ALRM10s hit CTs pretty hard on a lot of mechs, so I think how much they actually spread is over-exaggerated if we are saying that across the board all missile spread would be reduced to that of the LRM5. 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.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 12 October 2017 - 03:32 PM.