426 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

bow and arrow OP

[Vellron2005]

YueFei, on 25 February 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

Uh, you just contradicted yourself there. You claim IDF is "inherently superior", then in the next sentence admit that LRMs are still terrible.



At this point, I'm going to assume we're somehow talking completely past each other. You don't even address specifically the mechanics which I proposed. I never said I wanted LRM IDF to out-trade direct-fire.

I proposed a mechanic whereby LRM DF can trade well against direct-fire. I've proposed locking/guidance mechanics for LRMs based on how missiles actually behave in real life. I've proposed that LRM flight mechanics more closely mimic real life missiles, with an actual model of maneuverability and LATAX (energy budget).

Your last little bit about "locking weapon" vs "aimed weapon" shows that it doesn't even seem that you fully read my posts, or you'd have to seen that bit I said about having the shooter actually pick out a specific component to hit? That's an aimed weapon.

That doesn't mean we need to nuke any possibility of LRM IDF mode ever again, full stop. It can still retain IDF modes, and we could overhaul mechanics to allow for skillful IDF usage with the potential for counter-play on both sides. It just takes some imagination.

Simple examples: LRMs can IDF, but this is made possible by either:
1.) Proper C3I equipment (as opposed to the data-link we get "for free" as it is now), so that it comes with opportunity cost.
or:
2.) Firing "ballistically" at where you predict the enemy will be. Remove the ability to lock-on to an enemy that has broken line-of-sight. The only time the shooter guides the missiles is with direct line-of-sight to the target. Otherwise the missiles are on their own.

Also, LRMs in IDF mode could be so ammo inefficient in this mode (due to excess spread) that if you used IDF the entire game you'd run out of ammo before the enemy ran out of armor. That is, unless you've got a spotter with TAG guiding the missiles to the exact spot where his TAG is pointed, in which case the spotter has direct control over the missiles and the spread tightens up.

Another factor in balancing LRM IDF mode would be that it's so heat-inefficient in this mode (again due to excess spread making for a bad damage-to-heat ratio) that if you went into cyclic fire you'd heat cap for very little gain and be vulnerable to a push. Therefore you would still IDF, but it'd be measured, disciplined. Designed to inflict "chip damage" when possible.

And that's just ideas I came up with in just a few minutes. Change the mechanics, make the use of LRMs take skill, and make it so that bending "trick-shots" require some talent, and we'd have something amazing.

Tell me if you don't think the concept of shots like this are skillful or interesting:


Now if you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and let a lack of imagination overcome you, lemme know, then I can stop wasting my time debating this with you.

As a LRM enthusiast, I have to tell you, that most of your ideas seem like straight up nerfs, with very little benefit to even an experianced user..

Firing balistically without lock would never hit anything unless the target was completely stationary for more than 10 seconds, cose' of the absurdly slow flight time.

Ammo and heat inneficiency without TAG lead? Do you even play this game as a LRM boat? This would make LRM boats totally dependent on SOMEONE ELSE who has TAG, and we all know how rare it is for people to do something selfless in this game.. And most LRM boats find carrying their own TAG useless, cose' that completely disregards the indirect nature of the weapon and then you can might as well play ATMs or MRMs..

While I applaud efforts to make LRMs more skill-oriented, I think there's a better way..

1) First, bring back the noble art of LRM bending, by bringing back lock-on arcs to 45% as they used to be.

2) Make LRM's in-flight able to lock-on to a different target after original lock is lost, or to lock on to a target after being dumb-fired (fired without lock)

3) Make LRMs hit the component location that a TAG is pointing to, with user's own TAG having priority if multiple tags are used.

4) Give LRM users a way to dramatically increase tracking strength - right now, even with full sensor tree, locks are easily lost, even in close range.

5) Decrease the effectiveness of AMS slightly - stop the arms race. Set it to 1 AMS removes 5 missiles.

[Lugin]

YueFei, on 25 February 2018 - 11:56 PM, said:

Simple examples: LRMs can IDF, but this is made possible by either:
1.) Proper C3I equipment (as opposed to the data-link we get "for free" as it is now), so that it comes with opportunity cost.
or:
2.) Firing "ballistically" at where you predict the enemy will be. Remove the ability to lock-on to an enemy that has broken line-of-sight. The only time the shooter guides the missiles is with direct line-of-sight to the target. Otherwise the missiles are on their own.

HEY. Go read my post earlier in the thread on C3 and IDF.

Short version: Indirect fire gains NO BENEFIT from C3, and uses the spotting rules instead. C3 ONLY affects DIRECT FIRE targeting.

And a reminder: the spotting rules existed long before the C3 computer was on the horizon.

Also, I'd point out that LRMs are ALREADY highly ammo inefficient.

[OmniFail]

MischiefSC, on 25 February 2018 - 05:24 PM, said:

With DF you can shoot at the people shooting you. With IDF, you can not - you can only shoot at the people spotting for you. So one person with LoS can allow 11 other people to shoot you. At that point the game becomes how best to spot/chase spotters. If missiles are not fast enough to effectively reach people before they get to cover they work like they do now. If they are fast enough to reach people before they get into cover then you can even spot for yourself, maximizing damage while minimizing exposure.

First of all. Bro after firing as many Lurms as me, If I can see you I am totally gonna hit you unless you're just shoulder peeking.

Your post really demonstrates how disconnected you are to the mechanics of the game. ECM is not just for providing protection from locking missiles. It also helps spotters avoid detection. Spotting and chasing spotters is a core element to the game. Lights are ideal for this role of spotting and fast mediums are ideal for spotter chasing. This is literally how the game is supposed to work. This is why things like ECM, UAVs and stealth armor exist.

Edited by OmniFail, 26 February 2018 - 11:42 AM.

[Maker L106]

So after all this time I spend away I come back to more LRM "discussion".

[Warning: Opinions ahead]

You know... this goes to show how little Dev's / Players / **** all anyone understands indirect fire systems and other such on the conceptual level. It's almost like dealing with the same issues i run into in other genres with stealth or sniping, people do NOT understand the concepts and when they do it seems they try to cut it from their games as much as humanly possible these days.

MWO's LRM's need their locks. They work more or less alright now but they need a tighter spread. Artemis / Tag / NARC these all need to be taken care of in order to operate properly for the time being. The mere concept of a NARC'd target outside of cover being fired on from absolute safety is THE main thing that this sort of system prevails in.

Stealth (ECM and Stealth Armor) also act as a bit of firing from advantage or firing by surprise. Not safety.

As for Support systems, no one runs them because most of the maps are made in either a nonsensical fashion or with nothing other than "Kill the other guys" in mind. Get polar (i think), Have LRMS's go to J7 i think it is, Hide. wait for enemy team in the open. one or two lights go narc the **** out of them. Rain comes into the team in the open. Well they see LRM's so they close. While they close the Mechs take fire from the other team firing from safety, not getting shat on by direct fire. The meeting occurs, direct fire vs direct fire which the first team has less of, but the other team has less armor. The idea here is to destroy the battered team with your superior surviveability as you banked on the LRM's the problem with this is that QP isn't filled with people who understand the concept and even if they do working with them is occasionally a nightmare.

Following that you'll end up in many situations where mobility causes issues with this as well. Some IS Assaults are so fat and slow (but tanky) that they'll eat tons and tons of LRM's even if they're not dead they're the ONLY mech that dies in that initial push becuase the other people aren't shooting or the LRM's haven't stripped off that front armor yet.

But due to fat slow mechs being LRM magnets this is how this eventually works out. Team closes one or two assaults or perpetually slow heavies are either mangled or dead and it doesn't matter due to the force meeting the enemy team asymmetrically / out of formation so guns brought to bare on one target are substantially stacked once CQC / Direct fire commences.

This is exacerbated by the high alphas you see from laser weapons specifically when mixed with the rest of the loadout.

And all that **** is before we get into the biases of people.

Balance manager? no thoughts but i'm sure he just doesn't like some stuff after Impact and LRM shenanigans.

Pros? Don't know any personally but if direct fire is what they prefer, its likely just due to its effectiveness. If LRM's were more effective, that's what they'd likely use... unless...

...the entire game is setup for individuals not teams in which case why the **** are we here?

My extremely biased opinion.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 25 February 2018 - 10:39 PM, said:

It's almost as if mediums or lights that are aces for wrecking fast mobile types frequently used for spotting are useful in this brave new world of weapons that don't all travel in straight lines. Of course, if there's not even the hint of a threat of this tactic, that's one less thing for them to do...

Pardon the non-tabletoppers whilst I chat here.



Depends on your point of view. Twin 20's will usually stagger a target (20+ damage, since even without Artemis they're normally 24 damage), and a knockdown is often as much a crippling waiting to happen as it was in MWO. AMS is considerably better in TT nowadays, since it expends a single "shot" to give a single missile system -4 on cluster hits: it's effectiveness scales with launcher size, unlike MWOs where smaller launchers are disproportionately hosed by AMS. The "Artemis tax" was weakest against big launchers, so 15/20's in later tech levels had the advantage there, while DHS made it so spamming lots of LRM 5 launchers was a tonnage-saving tactic if you were going for quantity rather than quantity.


It just happened to be the "highest skill level" example. I've gotten kills in tournaments by pushing undamaged opponents who didn't check the map (off a cliff, landing headfirst and mashing the cockpit), Karate-Kidded people with a one leg standup and a small laser, and so on. It's Battletech. Ridiculous and glorious happen, as the old /tg/ comic with the one-armed Urbie shows. Indirect fire is useful in tabletop for much the same reason it should be useful in MWO- it allows for a missile equipped unit to contribute to a larger portion of the battlefield, (albeit with spread damage and no capacity to focus it's hits).



And that's how it should be. Most unit types end up having advantages against some other type, and in turn can be crippled by still others. Mech units optimized for killing other mechs often suffer horribly versus infantry/battle armor or even large formations of light vehicles. Artillery tends to be inefficient versus smaller mech formations but will shatter the same large formation that in turn will overwhelm that lance of mechs. Aerospace fighters will gut artillery. And so on, and so forth. It's chess with giant robots, but so many people only play with the knights and bishops and wonder why it's so easy to build a best strategy.



I spent some quality time with Bryan Nystul on Origins. It's The Great Mistake, but yes that's another tale.



That's why I want AMS being fitted on every Trial in the book here. We need a "worst case" baseline- unskilled players with automatic access to anti-LRM defenses that will function even if the player is trying to do donuts on Polar with his footprints while half the enemy team is shooting at him. In MWO, it's a "safety net", unlike tabletop where AMS only protects the user.

I firmly believe that given that baseline, we'll find LRMs have been hammered so far below direct fire weaponry at this point as to be ridiculous. That is, there is now an immense gap between direct fire and LRMs, and it's opened because people are so worried about another lurmageddon (which are the legacy of badly tested changes that turned it into a buggy death weapon).

Now the fears of a lurmageddon are "It'll kill the underhive players too hard if we made LRMs good enough to matter elsewhere." I say "Well, you didn't give the underhive any tools against LRMs, so of course they're better there."



And I can kill people with LRMs too. But generally, I know it's because I'm making up for a terrible weapon with skill (ha!) and trickery, because openly, I'd get rekt. Or that other people are doing more effective work than I am, leaving me to find spots in the firing line to exploit my one unique advantage or else.

And I don't want that. I will say that positioning skill is considerably more important for lock-on boaters, as there's a great number of "Checkmate" moves opponents can use that result in positions where LRMs deal zero accurate damage, and usually just plain zero. Having to keep track of your deadzone bubble being popped by a charge, opponents in cover that forces you to close into kilboxes or abandon the field, and so on. It really is a skill requirement unique to good missile boaters thanks to the horrors PGI inflicted on the system in the name of "balance" (but goodness knows, not fun).

Those skills don't exist in the underhive, positive or negative. AMS, however does and acts as a substitute (less efficient of course, because letting a rock soak up 100% of the LRMs is no tonnage, heat, or ammo while any given AMS only partially reduces damage + takes tonnage). Of course, if all Trials have AMS, then nobody's much ahead of tonnage as they're all using at least 1.5 tons for it.

I do want LRMs to get good enough that people consider AMS a potentially useful tradeoff. There are changes I want that are XML edit-tier stuff...but it won't happen until we get a world where newbie lurming is "missile boat versus AMS network". It'll raise the skill floor, which means in turn we can raise the skill celing.

The difference between your position on this and mine is the realization that there's a real set of reasons that IDF and auto-aim weapons don't really exist in FPS, certainly not combined as anything other than something akin to consumables. That's because that whole concept, viable damage with minimal/no exposure breaks balance. Like poptarting in spades. Beyond which it dramatically reduces viable builds in the game (just like the poptart era did) and forces everything else to be wrapped around the deployment or response to LRMs. I get where if someone really likes playing LRMs having the game balance suddenly shift to be entirely about them would be great - all the rest of us however would peace out to one degree or another.

So if you want to buff LRMs (which you and I both do) it needs to be as a direct fire weapon. Then you keep IDF there but tied to TAG/NARC. That's the only way it can possibly happen without screwing up everything else. I agree, absolutely, that LRMs are **** right now. I've said it a billion times. However that's because they're a locking IDF weapon and in a FPS game that's an absolute **** mechanic if it's not nerfed into the ground. Hence the balance around T4/T5; it's there for people who literally don't know how to aim. You want to change where LRMs fit you need to change how they function. You don't get to buff them and just assume it'll scale; it doesn't scale. Balance rarely scales. It's typically either/or. Better than/worse than. Because locking IDF maximizes damage and minimizes exposure it's the worst example of the case.

[BreakinStuff]

LRMs don't need any nerfs to their current functionality, period.

They're already terrible weapons, although I've mostly found a way around that.

Buffing them based on Line of Sight only works, but until a NARC beacon auto-flags you so everyone can lock you without a spotter?

then no, leave the IDF as-is. entirely dependent upon unreliable people who think the sensor tree is made from contact neurotoxin.

[Brain Cancer]

MischiefSC, on 27 February 2018 - 12:43 AM, said:

The difference between your position on this and mine is the realization that there's a real set of reasons that IDF and auto-aim weapons don't really exist in FPS, certainly not combined as anything other than something akin to consumables. That's because that whole concept, viable damage with minimal/no exposure breaks balance. Like poptarting in spades. Beyond which it dramatically reduces viable builds in the game (just like the poptart era did) and forces everything else to be wrapped around the deployment or response to LRMs. I get where if someone really likes playing LRMs having the game balance suddenly shift to be entirely about them would be great - all the rest of us however would peace out to one degree or another.

The reason LRMs are auto-aim is because they're glacially slow weapons that wouldn't hit a target on dumbfire mode otherwise. These are weapons that at one point were at 120 velocity, and considered "too dangerous" at 175 (and promptly put back above that velocity thanks to the skill tree) so 160 was considered a good idea.

Name a direct fire weapon that's expected to hit anything at 160 velocity. Even SRMs go faster than that. MRMs, which are expected to hit out to the ranges LRMs are accurate now have literally triple the velocity. A weapon that's expected to hit a target three seconds after it's fired or more ends up that way, because there is no mechanic on earth that would allow it to hit otherwise.

Quote

So if you want to buff LRMs (which you and I both do) it needs to be as a direct fire weapon. Then you keep IDF there but tied to TAG/NARC. That's the only way it can possibly happen without screwing up everything else. I agree, absolutely, that LRMs are **** right now. I've said it a billion times. However that's because they're a locking IDF weapon and in a FPS game that's an absolute **** mechanic if it's not nerfed into the ground. Hence the balance around T4/T5; it's there for people who literally don't know how to aim. You want to change where LRMs fit you need to change how they function. You don't get to buff them and just assume it'll scale; it doesn't scale. Balance rarely scales. It's typically either/or. Better than/worse than. Because locking IDF maximizes damage and minimizes exposure it's the worst example of the case.

TAG is a suicide system for spotting, assuming you found a spotter. NARC is a situational system that you only get outside an organized group by some dark miracle when the magical parsnip fairy grants you someone insane enough to mount them while dementedly thinking "I'll get plenty of LRM users to use this FOR SURE!".

Given, you might get someone like this:



But I kinda doubt it.

Requiring it for IDF basically turns LRMs most of the time into a direct fire weapon. An inferior one, because no other weapon in the game requires your team to strap extra equipment on to get their weapon system fully functional. Heck, they can just carry a few airstrikes and do the whole indirect fire thing without worrying about the guy with the automatically inferior missile battery.

One that will always be trash compared to real ones, because people will simply point at the IDF function like you are and go "IT'S GOT TO BE NERFED TO DEATH!".

Heck, don't even bother starting with buffing LRMs.

Just strap AMS on all the newbies and prove, once and for all exactly how bad this weapon has become as even the most starchy of taters strolls around most of the under a hail of anti-lurm bullets and we get newbie topic after newbie topic about how missiles don't function and how horribly dangerous indirect fire is because LOL, it might be meta.

That's what I want. A conclusive, thorough hate-screwing of guided missile systems to prove how utterly trashed they've become. No changes to current stats until everyone gets to watch how gloriously useless they truly are.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 27 February 2018 - 12:43 AM, said:

So if you want to buff LRMs (which you and I both do) it needs to be as a direct fire weapon. Then you keep IDF there but tied to TAG/NARC. That's the only way it can possibly happen without screwing up everything else. I agree, absolutely, that LRMs are **** right now. I've said it a billion times. However that's because they're a locking IDF weapon and in a FPS game that's an absolute **** mechanic if it's not nerfed into the ground. Hence the balance around T4/T5; it's there for people who literally don't know how to aim. You want to change where LRMs fit you need to change how they function. You don't get to buff them and just assume it'll scale; it doesn't scale. Balance rarely scales. It's typically either/or. Better than/worse than. Because locking IDF maximizes damage and minimizes exposure it's the worst example of the case.

Spider v5 spotter with a tag and a large laser together with a c4 with 2 mls and 2 lrm20.
Who strong must lrms be to give this combi the same value then two direct fire mechs?
And wouldnt the lrms not be to strong in direct mode then?
And dont miss that you need to buff lrms even more because the no-skill counters we have with ams, ecm and radar-crutch (they should be balanced against 2 ecm, 8 ams and 8 radarcrutches).
And whats with amts and mrms then, seems they are obsolete or need a big buff too, if direct fire lrms can compete with other direct fire weapons.

Sorry, think again and come with a plan that also counts for the counters and the other missile weapons.

And about fps and lockon weapons, never played tribes 2?
A game that was fast, 3 demensional and has a lot more options then battlefield or all the other kiddy-shooters have, 17 years ago.

Edited by Kroete, 27 February 2018 - 05:42 AM.

[OmniFail]

LOL I actually worked on Starsiege: Tribes when I worked Sierra Entertainment. Another project that I worked on was Relics Homeworld 2. I often wonder if the Alex Garden from MWO is the same guy as the founder of Relic entertainment. Both Relic and PGI are in the same city after all. If I recall back in the day many of the devs from relic where huge Mechwarrior fans around the time they did Impossible Creatures.

Edited by OmniFail, 27 February 2018 - 09:16 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Name a direct fire weapon that's expected to hit anything at 160 velocity. Even SRMs go faster than that. MRMs, which are expected to hit out to the ranges LRMs are accurate now have literally triple the velocity. A weapon that's expected to hit a target three seconds after it's fired or more ends up that way, because there is no mechanic on earth that would allow it to hit otherwise.

exactly.

lrms are even supposed to be "long range missiles" but have 1/3rd the velocity of MRMs lol

yeah ok. i really dont think bumping lrms upto 200-240 would be a problem.

[Vellron2005]

Brain Cancer, on 27 February 2018 - 01:10 AM, said:

No changes to current stats until everyone gets to watch how gloriously useless they truly are.

You say they are useless... yet, somehow, I did 1300+ damage with 3 solo kills in QP in my LRM boat the other day.. and only yesterday, in FP, 10 KMDDs, 7 kills, 3 of those solo, and 2700+ damage on Boreal Vault defense..

My Fiancee did 1600 damage in her LRM boat on HPG QP..

And these are not oddball games..they are not standard, but they happen often.. and in higher tiers to boot.. no T5 underhive here..

So you know.. I'm not so sure LRMs are useless..

But they could be more fun to play. They could offer a bit more skill requirement for advanced users.. so we could do even better if we know how..

I've already suggested what could be done on many occasions, but I'll repeat myself here...

1) Return lock-on arcs to 45% to promote "LRM bending"

2) Lower the missile trajectory arc if below cover or if in direct LOS, making them shoot almost straight instead of in an arc. Keep high arcs if behind cover and no LOS.

3) Make TAG guide missiles to specific target components

4) Narrow the spread somewhat

5) Make it somewhat easier to keep own's locks

6) Give the ability to fire without lock and then lock mid-air, and to lock, fire, lose lock than lock and hit a different target while missiles mid-air.

Personally, I think points 5) and 6) would give us LRM lovers sooo much fun.. and doing things like this would make some high-skill trick shots possible, not to mention much less wasted ammo.. twould be fun

Edited by Vellron2005, 28 February 2018 - 01:20 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Vellron2005, on 28 February 2018 - 01:16 AM, said:

You say they are useless... yet, somehow, I did 1300+ damage with 3 solo kills in QP in my LRM boat the other day.. and only yesterday, in FP, 10 KMDDs, 7 kills, 3 of those solo, and 2700+ damage on Boreal Vault defense..

I can post massive numbers with LRMs too. In fact, I've done it plenty of times. But three solo kills in a LRM boat with 1300 damage? Think about that. Think about how many missiles you had to spew on those three to put each one down.

It takes having easy targets with minimal cover, letting you rack up the big numbers (and yes, the solo kills as you slowly, thoroughly and with massive spread crush them to death). There's a reason Polar (or even Boreal) is LRM central. Now, go do that regularly on Mining or Crimson. Enjoy the constant din of your missiles failing at urban renewal while getting poked to death.

Meanwhile, you'll see people rack up the same kills with much less damage- and much less time - simply by melting someone with laserfire. And on maps where LRMs don't really get that luxury, you get owned. Hard. I lived in lurmboats for literally years worth of play before the CW update, from a Kit Fox up to my current Supernova. FP isn't dominated by Supernova-A LRM builds, it's full of ERLL Supernovas. And you'd end up doing far more useful duty with the latter.

Big damage numbers are easiest with LRMs because you dump so much damage on useless locations to actually kill someone, half the missiles (if not more) didn't actually contribute to the kill, only blowing random armor plates off while you nibbled your target to death. Naturally, you tend to get solo kills with killing blows that way or at least KMDDs, simply because you had to spray the target with so many hits, anything even remotely precise wouldn't come close to matching your damage spam even if they one-shotted the target. If they did, the match would time out before anyone died.

LRMs are still doing damage even in T1 because the same fools that were getting hosed down in T4 are now at the end of the magical orange bar and have learned nothing. If you don't get those fools, enjoy getting games where triple digit damage is an achievement.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 28 February 2018 - 11:29 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Brain Cancer, on 28 February 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

I can post massive numbers with LRMs too. In fact, I've done it plenty of times. But three solo kills in a LRM boat with 1300 damage? Think about that. Think about how many missiles you had to spew on those three to put each one down.

It takes having easy targets with minimal cover, letting you rack up the big numbers (and yes, the solo kills as you slowly, thoroughly and with massive spread crush them to death). There's a reason Polar (or even Boreal) is LRM central. Now, go do that regularly on Mining or Crimson. Enjoy the constant din of your missiles failing at urban renewal while getting poked to death.

Meanwhile, you'll see people rack up the same kills with much less damage- and much less time - simply by melting someone with laserfire. And on maps where LRMs don't really get that luxury, you get owned. Hard. I lived in lurmboats for literally years worth of play before the CW update, from a Kit Fox up to my current Supernova. FP isn't dominated by Supernova-A LRM builds, it's full of ERLL Supernovas. And you'd end up doing far more useful duty with the latter.

Big damage numbers are easiest with LRMs because you dump so much damage on useless locations to actually kill someone, half the missiles (if not more) didn't actually contribute to the kill, only blowing random armor plates off while you nibbled your target to death. Naturally, you tend to get solo kills with killing blows that way or at least KMDDs, simply because you had to spray the target with so many hits, anything even remotely precise wouldn't come close to matching your damage spam even if they one-shotted the target. If they did, the match would time out before anyone died.

LRMs are still doing damage even in T1 because the same fools that were getting hosed down in T4 are now at the end of the magical orange bar and have learned nothing. If you don't get those fools, enjoy getting games where triple digit damage is an achievement.

See.. you got the base premise quite wrong there...

LRMs are actually not meant to get solo kills, or kills in general.. They are meant to get KMDDs and making it easier for those direct fire laser pokers to get the kills. So if you get 3 solo kills in a LRM boat, you do so because a) You are really good at positioning or b ) The enemy is really bad at positioning. This is what most people don't understand - LRMs are not meant to be "effective killers" - they are meant to be battlefield controllers.

Trust me when I say, there is only a single map in the game where I have not yet gone 1000+ damage with a LRM boat - Rubellite. (I'm working on it though).

Also, if you think FP is not dominated by LRM Supernovas, you are a bit misguided too.. Most drops, FP or QP are dominated by LRM boats, but not in the way of damage or kills, but in the way of literally controlling the enemy's movements and forcing tactics.. They either suppress and pin the enemy down, or force them to push.

I can't begin to count the number of matches I've had, even very recently, where LRM boats, sometimes only my girl and me, have not completely dictated what happens in a match.

Here's an example of such FP dominance - first drop, She and I drop LRM Assaults - first way result is 12:3 for us.. then we both drop in lights, result of the wave is 2:12 for the enemy.. we drop in LRM assaults again, and smash the enemy for total result of 48:24.. We didn't get so many kills our selves, mind you, but our unceassing LRM rain changed how the enemy behaved, in our favor, and allowed others to do better. And this is just a simple example.

True, some maps are easier to LRM boat on than others, but great / bad matches happen on all maps.

I've come to the conclusion that it is actually how a team deals with enemy LRM boats that often makes or breaks a match. If the enemy's LRM boats are neutralized, you have a great chance of winning. If you let them do their thing, they have a good chance of crushing you.

Also, keep in mind a simple, sad fact about this game - killing someone fast is not very profitable. KMDDs, assists and high damage numbers are what brings home the bacon. Winning or loosing is not very important in QP. In FP, sure, you get a nice bonus, but it often doesn't not depend on you at all.. You can carry with 2000+ damage, and the enemy will simply assassin-rush your gens and omega, and you still lose..

Edited by Vellron2005, 01 March 2018 - 12:02 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

LRMs are actually not meant to get solo kills, or kills in general.. They are meant to get KMDDs and making it easier for those direct fire laser pokers to get the kills. So if you get 3 solo kills in a LRM boat, you do so because a) You are really good at positioning or b ) The enemy is really bad at positioning. This is what most people don't understand - LRMs are not meant to be "effective killers" - they are meant to be battlefield controllers.

Hint: If you pumped half a dozen ERLLs into your target, you'd also get that KMDD. And your fellow laserpokers would go faster.

And the kill. Much sooner. But you're right on the "kills come from bad positioning" much more often than not with LRMs.

But damage that doesn't contribute to mobility kill or outright killing the target is wasted damage, and the slower you get to the point of either, the worse a choice that becomes.

Nothing wastes damage like LRMs and nothing is slower at killing than LRMs. And a weapon that doesn't kill a target reliably...isn't a good weapon.

Quote

Most drops, FP or QP are dominated by LRM boats, but not in the way of damage or kills, but in the way of literally controlling the enemy's movements and forcing tactics.. They either suppress and pin the enemy down, or force them to push.

Patently untrue. Suppressive, pinning fire is more effective with hitscan or high-velocity projectiles than LRMs. Whatever you do with them right now, something else will do better, with the exception of indirect fire. Nothing like being in the middle of a gen push when someone tries to lurm a target...and that target lasts longer than the one I pumped ATMs into. Or lasers. Because focused damage is what legs or kills a unit before they get to the generators or Omega. LRMs lack stopping power, and "I'm helping" damage is still better done by the guy doing it in direct fire mode.

Now, if you can't hit them at all otherwise? Go lurms, your one remaining niche is being filled. Unless you have airstrikes or something.

[Brain Cancer]

OmniFail, on 27 February 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

LOL I actually worked on Starsiege: Tribes when I worked Sierra Entertainment. Another project that I worked on was Relics Homeworld 2. I often wonder if the Alex Garden from MWO is the same guy as the founder of Relic entertainment. Both Relic and PGI are in the same city after all. If I recall back in the day many of the devs from relic where huge Mechwarrior fans around the time they did Impossible Creatures.

Nope. He's back to being the CEO for Relic again.

And to give people an idea of the {im}potency of the modern LRM, here's two LRM 100 boats versus one triple AMS Kit Fox.

Spoiler

Even with 200 missiles at a time, it still takes five salvos to kill one KFX, though it's basically crippled after salvo #4.

Note that this is prior to the October Artemis change, but these guys aren't using Artemis to begin with.

[Vellron2005]

Brain Cancer, on 03 March 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

Nope. He's back to being the CEO for Relic again.

And to give people an idea of the {im}potency of the modern LRM, here's two LRM 100 boats versus one triple AMS Kit Fox.

Spoiler

Even with 200 missiles at a time, it still takes five salvos to kill one KFX, though it's basically crippled after salvo #4.

Note that this is prior to the October Artemis change, but these guys aren't using Artemis to begin with.

That LRM200 Vs. 3xAMS is overkill.. I've soloed 3xAMS Irondome Kitfoxes with LRM75.. You just gotta use a bit more ammo.. But I've done it in 3-4 alphas..

Minimum for killing Irondomes is LRM50..

It's especially easy when I partner up with my dear Lady, both of us in a LRM75 or LRM80 boats..

[Vellron2005]

Brain Cancer, on 01 March 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

Hint: If you pumped half a dozen ERLLs into your target, you'd also get that KMDD. And your fellow laserpokers would go faster.

And the kill. Much sooner. But you're right on the "kills come from bad positioning" much more often than not with LRMs.

But damage that doesn't contribute to mobility kill or outright killing the target is wasted damage, and the slower you get to the point of either, the worse a choice that becomes.

Nothing wastes damage like LRMs and nothing is slower at killing than LRMs. And a weapon that doesn't kill a target reliably...isn't a good weapon.



Patently untrue. Suppressive, pinning fire is more effective with hitscan or high-velocity projectiles than LRMs. Whatever you do with them right now, something else will do better, with the exception of indirect fire. Nothing like being in the middle of a gen push when someone tries to lurm a target...and that target lasts longer than the one I pumped ATMs into. Or lasers. Because focused damage is what legs or kills a unit before they get to the generators or Omega. LRMs lack stopping power, and "I'm helping" damage is still better done by the guy doing it in direct fire mode.

Now, if you can't hit them at all otherwise? Go lurms, your one remaining niche is being filled. Unless you have airstrikes or something.

OK, that was for fun

In reality, yeah, if you pump somebody full of ERLL, you might get a KMDD.. but you will also take damage yourself.. With LRMs, you probably won't take damage.. so why give the enemy anything?

Also, experience has shown that nothing in this game has the "scrambling for cover" power like LRMs.. Unless there's half the enemy team heading straight for you. Trust me.. nothing.

Also, yes, LRMs spread damage absurdly, but given they do obscene amounts of it, they are equally fast at killing mechs like many other weapons in the game.. No, they can't compare to Gauss or 6ERLL's, but neither can 6 ERLL's to LRM80.. I can take down any mech in the game with 5 LRM80 alphas, same as anyone can take it down with 5 6xERLL alphas.. But I will do more damage, destroy more components, and even if I don't kill it, it will make it alot softer for everyone else, and I would have given the enemy no chance of retaliation.

Last, but not least.. all that "wasted" inefficient damage translates to lots of cbills.. This game does not reward effectiveness, only the end result.

P.S.

Here's an extremely fun account from 2 days ago:

FP on Grim Plexus, skirmish or assault, can't remember which.. Anyway, I'm in a LRM80 Highlander IIC, and several other people are also in LRM boats..

I'm just coming out of spawn, and are in a bad position.. somebody piloting a UAC Jeagermech sees me all alone, isolated, and heads straight at me, thinking to "rush the LRM boat".

I start LRM'in him.. I fire two alphas, and see this guy intends to rush me.. He's missing half armor from fresh by this time.. so I call him in into voip, saying "Alpha, jeager, in the open" - all other LRM boats on the field, at least 4 of them with me in total, fire a salvo or two. Three seconds later, no more Jeager.. I thank my team and proceed calling targets.. Not so easy to do that with lasers, is it? They all literally just turned around on the spot, locked, and fired once or maybe twice, then proceed to do whatever they were doing. Teamwork is op.

We won that match 48:30-ish. LRMs are useful.

Edited by Vellron2005, 05 March 2018 - 02:07 AM.

[Sjorpha]

MischiefSC, on 27 February 2018 - 12:43 AM, said:

So if you want to buff LRMs (which you and I both do) it needs to be as a direct fire weapon. Then you keep IDF there but tied to TAG/NARC. That's the only way it can possibly happen without screwing up everything else. I agree, absolutely, that LRMs are **** right now. I've said it a billion times. However that's because they're a locking IDF weapon and in a FPS game that's an absolute **** mechanic if it's not nerfed into the ground. Hence the balance around T4/T5; it's there for people who literally don't know how to aim. You want to change where LRMs fit you need to change how they function. You don't get to buff them and just assume it'll scale; it doesn't scale. Balance rarely scales. It's typically either/or. Better than/worse than. Because locking IDF maximizes damage and minimizes exposure it's the worst example of the case.

While I actually agree IDF weapons needs to be significantly weaker than DF in order to not warp the gameplay too much, that doesn't mean you can't give a direct buff to LRMs, it's a matter of not buffing them too much.

I joined this game April 2014, so 4 years ago. And LRMs were significantly underpowered back then, and they have been nerfed in several ways since then so now they are even more underpowered. There is literally no map or situation where LRMs are a good weapon right now, and as far as I know this has been true at the very least during the 4 years I have been playing.

So at a minimum, LRMs could be buffed to where they were in 2014 without causing problems, probably a fair bit more than that.

To make LRMs compete with direct fire would require a very extreme buff, so there is ample window for a moderate one.

Edited by Sjorpha, 05 March 2018 - 03:14 AM.

[Vellron2005]

As long as we're on the same page here, that no matter what happens with balance, LRMs should NEVER be direct fire only.. nor should they ever be balanced so that they work better when fired directly than indirectly..

That's what ATMs are for..

LRMs should always be indirect.