104 replies to this topic

[ANOM O MECH]

I don't understand what the point or purpose to this thread might be.

Almost every thread that has to do with lurms you are all over. I think we get that you like lurms. To be honest even your stats with ATM's doesn't say much to me other than how bad the players currently in tier one are. ATM's might be better than lurms but they are still a poor choice.

This certainly is a topic which gets people riled up. There does not seem to be much of a consensus on what to do however and threads like this seem like only a place where people who really want to argue and rant come.

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?

Can you do anything other than fan the flames that are already skyscrapper height?

[Wolfways]

Ensaine, on 17 December 2017 - 05:49 AM, said:

LRM's to me are really not much different than the LL spam we all see. Long range, minimum damage at great ranges, but a laser blast is over in seconds, where a volley of LRM's basically announce themselves on launch, allowing you to duck to safety, or go hug an AMS ally.

Except that LRM's are 99% of the time useless for long range.

Jonathan8883, on 17 December 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

6xALRM5 gives me a Ghost Heat warning, so I may have to ripple fire them.

And then you can watch AMS turn your clan missiles into powder.

Appogee, on 17 December 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

It's a pity MWO's scoring system does not take into sufficient account the 'usefulness' of damage. It might encourage more players to deliver useful damage.

The goal should be to make all weapons viable, not discourage using some of them.

[Wolfways]

tker 669, on 17 December 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?

Simple fix? Make battlefields instead of arenas. Will pgi ever do this? Not a chance.

[Pariah Devalis]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

Simple fix? Make battlefields instead of arenas. Will pgi ever do this? Not a chance.

Better fix: Make LRM fire "clusters" of 5 instead of individual missiles, and reduce the "damage per missile" from 1.1 back to 1.0. Now LRM 5 shoots one cluster, 10 fires two, 15 three, and 20 four. One cluster of missiles hits one specific location instead of, potentially, five locations. IS LRM fire all the clusters at one time, while Clan LRM fire the clusters in chain as they currently do.

Have LRM track improve dramatically if you maintain your own LOS on the target regardless of Artemis bonus. Allow Artemis to continue to improve the cluster odds somewhat to add additional benefit for LRM mechs that fire with their own LOS to target.

Either AMS or the "health per cluster" would need to be modified such that a single AMS cannot completely shut down LRM 5 spam, but would still supply a significant defense against it.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 December 2017 - 12:26 PM.

[Wolfways]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 December 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

Better fix: Make LRM fire "clusters" of 5 instead of individual missiles, and reduce the "damage per missile" from 1.1 back to 1.0. Now LRM 5 shoots one cluster, 10 fires two, 15 three, and 20 four. One cluster of missiles hits one specific location instead of, potentially, five locations. IS LRM fire all the clusters at one time, while Clan LRM fire the clusters in chain as they currently do.

Have LRM track improve dramatically if you maintain your own LOS on the target regardless of Artemis bonus. Allow Artemis to continue to improve the cluster odds somewhat to add additional benefit for LRM mechs that fire with their own LOS to target.

Either AMS or the "health per cluster" would need to be modified such that a single AMS cannot completely shut down LRM 5 spam, but would still supply a significant defense against it.

Still doesn't make LRM's long range weapons though.

[Pariah Devalis]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

Still doesn't make LRM's long range weapons though.

OK. Here's another fix:

Remove all buildings and elevation from the maps. Remove all direct fire weapons from the game that reach beyond 500 meters. LRM maintain 100% lock on any mech you hit R for, and will track in even if you're pointed 180 degrees away from the target.

/s

Damage clustering would improve their capabilities at all ranges. That you can fire indirectly from 800 meters is still an option, but the concept should be to incentivize LOS firing while not eliminating indirect area denial functionality. Also, to make the weapon not suck.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 17 December 2017 - 12:34 PM.

[Wolfways]

Pariah Devalis, on 17 December 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Remove all buildings and elevation from the maps.

Just make more maps like Alpine.

Quote

Remove all direct fire weapons from the game that reach beyond 500 meters.

Increase LRM range.

Quote

LRM maintain 100% lock on any mech you hit R for, and will track in even if you're pointed 180 degrees away from the target.

LRM's should be F&F.

[Y E O N N E]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

LRM's should be F&F.

Sure. Then remove the lock.

[Wolfways]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Sure. Then remove the lock.

That makes no sense. They have to lock because they are long range with slow velocity.

[Y E O N N E]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

That makes no sense. They have to lock because they are long range with slow velocity.

I though we were trying to make them more viable. Leaving slow velocity doesn't do that with or without F&F.

If you want them to be more viable, they have to move considerably faster. If you want them to not be OP at that point, you have to do something to hinder or remove the lock. We've already experienced fast LRMs without that and it was silly.

[ANOM O MECH]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

Simple fix? Make battlefields instead of arenas. Will pgi ever do this? Not a chance.

So bringing up something that will never happen is in your mind a constructive contribution?

There are so many reasons lurms are terrible. In many ways they should be since we have what we have.

If they did buff lurms to be a fast and hard hitting weapon they would also have to limit how many you have on a team. In the lower tiers there are already way too many players running lrm's and matches are usually pretty terrible because of it.

You are also firmly in the minority if you believe that lrms should be a tier one weapon.

However lets not forget the vitriol goes both ways. The ghost heat added to ppc/gauss killed an entire playstyle as well. One that a lot of people enjoyed. One that was not over powered, especially considered the alpha's you see on the field.

So you want lrms fixed? Start by advocating for positive change all around and an end to Kodiak nerfs, uac nerfs, and on and on and on with all of the nerfing.

[Y E O N N E]

tker 669, on 17 December 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

However lets not forget the vitriol goes both ways. The ghost heat added to ppc/gauss killed an entire playstyle as well. One that a lot of people enjoyed. One that was not over powered, especially considered the alpha's you see on the field.

Correction: the NTG poptart absolutely was over-powered. But they went too far by linking the weapons at 2. At 3, the playstyle would have stuck around but the NTG wouldn't have been so cancerous.

[Wolfways]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

I though we were trying to make them more viable. Leaving slow velocity doesn't do that with or without F&F.

If you want them to be more viable, they have to move considerably faster. If you want them to not be OP at that point, you have to do something to hinder or remove the lock. We've already experienced fast LRMs without that and it was silly.

You want them to have a similar velocity to AC2's? Otherwise lower velocity without a lock is pointless.
Also, increasing velocity hardly makes them OP lol. They already have the biggest hindrance they could possibly have, masses of cover on arena maps.

When did we have fast LRM's? I've been away for a year+.
What was silly about it? I assume you mean aesthetics.

tker 669, on 17 December 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

So bringing up something that will never happen is in your mind a constructive contribution?

On these forums I don't think anything will ever happen. Pgi could close the forums down and it would make no difference to the future of the game. This isn't Twitter.

tker 669, on 17 December 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

If they did buff lurms to be a fast and hard hitting weapon they would also have to limit how many you have on a team.

Like the way direct fire weapons are limited?
On no they aren't, even though they will always be better than LRM's.

tker 669, on 17 December 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

You are also firmly in the minority if you believe that lrms should be a tier one weapon.

I believe every weapon should be equally viable in their respective roll.

[Y E O N N E]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

You want them to have a similar velocity to AC2's? Otherwise lower velocity without a lock is pointless.
Also, increasing velocity hardly makes them OP lol. They already have the biggest hindrance they could possibly have, masses of cover on arena maps.

Masses of cover you have to move between to use direct fire weapons. You want to make SRMs, SN-PPCs, and AC/20s worthless, now?

Velocity on LRMs right now is only 160 m/s. Even an increase to 450 m/s would see an improvement that you apparently have a hard time visualizing (MRMs, but with guidance...that's insanely good).

Quote

When did we have fast LRM's? I've been away for a year+.
What was silly about it? I assume you mean aesthetics.

It was pretty indefensible. AMS couldn't deal with the amount of missiles and nothing could really move between cover without getting flattened.

[ANOM O MECH]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Correction: the NTG poptart absolutely was over-powered. But they went too far by linking the weapons at 2. At 3, the playstyle would have stuck around but the NTG wouldn't have been so cancerous.

I don't know. Not wanting to argue the point, but for an entire playstyle to be destroyed doesn't seem like the appropriate response to me.

NTG also got it in the rear with mobility and dakka nerfs.... I sold the free one they gave out recently and I never sell mechs, ever.

I get meta's evolve and that is good for a game in general. Here however we are in a community and game that is all about destroying how folks play.

I love this game. I don't want everything reduced to garbage.

[Wolfways]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Masses of cover you have to move between to use direct fire weapons. You want to make SRMs, SN-PPCs, and AC/20s worthless, now?

Masses of cover that you use to rarely ever get hit by LRM's.
How would those other weapons ever be useless?

Quote

Velocity on LRMs right now is only 160 m/s. Even an increase to 450 m/s would see an improvement that you apparently have a hard time visualizing (MRMs, but with guidance...that's insanely good).

Still pointless at long range.

Quote

It was pretty indefensible. AMS couldn't deal with the amount of missiles and nothing could really move between cover without getting flattened.

Wish I hadn't missed that lol.

[Y E O N N E]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Masses of cover that you use to rarely ever get hit by LRM's.
How would those other weapons ever be useless?

Masses of cover used to avoid getting hit by anything, including beams and shells.

LRMs work in the same cases where RACs work: when the enemy has commit to a movement and they are exposed. Neither weapon is great for essentially the same reasons.

It will never be a good option

Quote

Still pointless at long range.

Not really. Just a hair over two seconds to travel 1000 meters, most 'Mechs aren't fast enough to expose, shoot, and return to cover in that time.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 December 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[ANOM O MECH]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

On these forums I don't think anything will ever happen. Pgi could close the forums down and it would make no difference to the future of the game. This isn't Twitter.


Like the way direct fire weapons are limited?
On no they aren't, even though they will always be better than LRM's.


I believe every weapon should be equally viable in their respective roll.

I agree that every weapon should be viable in there roll.

I don't hate lurms at all. I think that they should have a velocity increase. A substantial one at that. I also think that LOS should make arty work so that the guy working to keep his target in sight is rewarded.

You and I also agree on that lurms should absolutely be able to be effective at ranges greater than 4-500 metres. A long range weapon that is completely useless at range is silly.

As far as limiting goes...I believe in this full out. You don't need limits on direct fire as they are many and varied enough to have a more or less natural balance. Lurms however, especailly if they were decent would be abused. In the lower tiers they already are.

Having six lurmers a side is pretty normal in some parts of our universe...at the height of the ppc/gauss meta you would never, ever see that many on both sides.

Again, you want lrm's effective in their roll? You would absolutely, to balance them have to make it so matches don't end up with two teams a thousand metres apart, stationary, mashing buttons. Don't get me wrong I would absolutely if I could, also limit sniper builds to a couple a team max if I could.

I would be happy and willing to bet that if the match maker were set to limit long range builds in general to four a team (or something of the sort), that this alone (having proper team composition as well as even tonnage) would make games a whole ***** ton more betterer. So yeah I would say that lurms are in a class that (especially if they were good) would need limits to how many were fielded.

[Wolfways]

Yeonne Greene, on 17 December 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Masses of cover used to avoid getting hit by anything, including beams and shells.

If you are just hiding yes, but you can move around most maps without taking LRM fire but direct weapons can still hit you.

Quote

LRMs work in the same cases where RACs work: when the enemy has commit to a movement and they are exposed. Neither weapon is great for essentially the same reasons.

It will never be a good option

But RAC's are dps weapons, not intended for peeking. I haven't tried them but I've spectated others using them and looked at their stats and they are obviously good at their job. I still think AC's are better because you get dps and peeking with them, although if you know where the target is you can start the RAC barrel before you peek.
The reason they are not great weapons in general is because of the amount of cover on maps.

Quote

Not really. Just a hair over two seconds to travel 1000 meters, most 'Mechs aren't fast enough to expose, shoot, and return to cover in that time.

Doesn't an AC2 with 2000 speed take around 2 seconds to hit a target at 1000m? Feels like it does.
Missiles traveling at that speed would look weird anyway.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Wolfways, on 17 December 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

Doesn't an AC2 with 2000 speed take around 2 seconds to hit a target at 1000m? Feels like it does.
Missiles traveling at that speed would look weird anyway.

No, it takes 0.5s. A 2,000m/s projectile travelling 1,000m

I don't think MRMs look silly travelling at 475m/s *shrug*