426 replies to this topic

[Stinger554]

Mystere, on 13 February 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

Ahem! LRMs are supposed to be indirect fire weapons.

Which if you read what I said they still have the ability to do so; just the target has to be tagged or narc'd. So if you want to fire LRMs indirectly you either have to carry a narc and poke using the narc and the run back to cover to fire indirectly or have a spotter with a tag or narc. Otherwise you need direct LOS.

[nehebkau]

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

Since AMS is zero skill (it's automatic missile busting),

I would humbly submit that LRMs are a zero skill weapon, and as such should have a zero skill counter. In higher levels of game play actually aiming and using direct fire weapons is far more fun than LRMing.... unless you are LRMing T4s and T5s -- that is fun.

[HammerMaster]

Lugin, on 14 February 2018 - 12:54 AM, said:

*TWITCH*

Ain't no such thing. What we have is the spotting rules.

LRM indirect rules, from Total Warfare, pg 111:

Spoiler

C3 only affects range-based targeting bonus/penalty.

From Total Warfare, pg 131:

Spoiler

Seriously, you want to "fix" LRMs? Triple or quadruple the base velocity. 5+ seconds to reach max range is beyond ********.

I'd also point out they SHOULD be fire-and-forget, but start with that velocity first.

It IS free c3 because the indirect fire and then scatter rules are not being used. Just lock and shoot as normal. This is the tier 4/5 bogeyman.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 13 February 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

Artemis not functioning with IDF mode means higher spread, thus they already are in most cases.

Heck, apply a similar spread penalty to them without Artemis. I don't care, I'd just like my missiles to arrive sometime earlier than a week from next Tuesday.

And IDF adds +1 on your target number too.... So yeas IDF is less accurate than direct fire. That's why I'm happy to increase speed and reduce spread for direct fire on LRM's. Have the basic direct fire mode use the Artemis spread pattern, when we add Artemis, tighten the grouping even more.

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

To the anti-AMS crowd, while your hiding half the match on terrain I be letting my group go in close under AMS cover and let them suck my gauss.

[Dago Red]

process, on 14 February 2018 - 07:25 AM, said:

For starters I would only reduce the arc with a direct lock. They'll feel faster since it will take less time to connect with the target. Trading damage for cooldown isn't a bad idea, although it might just encourage people to commit even harder to high-capacity LRM boats.

If the current speed wasn't so abysmal I'd be inclined to agree. But as is even if they took an MRM like straight path they're so slow that it would still be able to be dodged fairly easily.

If someones going to nut up and face down and opponent who's likely to be using something more pin point with that bad of a spread pattern themselves then they deserve to at least have it connect most of the time.

As is people already shove as many as they can into most LRM mechs so I don't see how it could make them boat harder.

Some have recommended a doubling of damage in exchange for doubled cooldown. I think that might be too much as a start and would be interested to see 50% increases.

[Sjorpha]

I've never understood the obsession with changing lrms, taking away indirect fire and so on.

The only problem with lrms currently is that they are severely underpowered, just go ahead and straight up buff them so they don't suck so bad.

I get not buffing them all the way to comp viability, that's fine. Just buff them enough to not suck in quickplay and faction play.

[process]

Dago Red, on 14 February 2018 - 07:56 AM, said:

If the current speed wasn't so abysmal I'd be inclined to agree. But as is even if they took an MRM like straight path they're so slow that it would still be able to be dodged fairly easily.

If someones going to nut up and face down and opponent who's likely to be using something more pin point with that bad of a spread pattern themselves then they deserve to at least have it connect most of the time.

As is people already shove as many as they can into most LRM mechs so I don't see how it could make them boat harder.

Some have recommended a doubling of damage in exchange for doubled cooldown. I think that might be too much as a start and would be interested to see 50% increases.

Considering they'll still lock, unlike MRMs, I think they should at least travel slower than MRMs. I would be supportive of increasing the velocity if perhaps the direct lock tracking strength were weakened, such that a mech strafing quickly enough could dodge a locked volley.

Sjorpha, on 14 February 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

I've never understood the obsession with changing lrms, taking away indirect fire and so on.

The only problem with lrms currently is that they are severely underpowered, just go ahead and straight up buff them so they don't suck so bad.

I get not buffing them all the way to comp viability, that's fine. Just buff them enough to not suck in quickplay and faction play.

The challenge is a direct buff may make them viable at high tier play, but could completely overpower them among newer players. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely want a good reason to use them more often. My Timbers feel so wrong without their ears.

[Mystere]

Stinger554, on 14 February 2018 - 07:29 AM, said:

Which if you read what I said they still have the ability to do so; just the target has to be tagged or narc'd. So if you want to fire LRMs indirectly you either have to carry a narc and poke using the narc and the run back to cover to fire indirectly or have a spotter with a tag or narc. Otherwise you need direct LOS.

Let me restate then:

LRMs are supposed to be indirect fire weapons that do not need additional equipment or a spotter to fire indirectly.

Better?

[ROSS-128]

HammerMaster, on 14 February 2018 - 07:39 AM, said:

It IS free c3 because the indirect fire and then scatter rules are not being used. Just lock and shoot as normal. This is the tier 4/5 bogeyman.

The only thing LRM indirect fire does with normal spotting is +1 to hit. It doesn't scatter onto adjacent hexes or anything like that (that's artillery), and it doesn't affect the Cluster Hit Table in any way. MWO doesn't really have any way to directly simulate a +1 to hit because we don't roll to hit... but in a way, the fact that you're counting on someone else to hold a lock kind of does stand-in for that, since if they drop their lock before the missiles arrive, they won't hit.

In fact, C3 does absolutely nothing for LRMs:

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for
or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect
Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

The only exception is that the C3 Master unit has a built-in TAG, but that doesn't do anything a normal TAG wouldn't do. TAG is its own thing, and TAG is what eliminates the +1 to hit.

Really, you should be more careful to look things up when you're on a forum where some posters might have the rulebook sitting on their desk next to them.

[Dago Red]

process, on 14 February 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

Considering they'll still lock, unlike MRMs, I think they should at least travel slower than MRMs. I would be supportive of increasing the velocity if perhaps the direct lock tracking strength were weakened, such that a mech strafing quickly enough could dodge a locked volley.

Twas why I recommended the speed of ATM's. Still slower than MRM's and with the shallow arc it actually makes it pretty easy to make most of them eat dirt if you're not caught dead in the open. The bigger launchers already throw some at the ground on anything less perfectly shaped to receive them than a King Crab as is so I'm not sure weakening the tracking is necessary.

The same counters as exist now would still apply ie break lock, charge to under minimum range/range where they only scuff paint, or just put a solid piece of cover in the way and basically any direct fire weapon is still going to kill faster.

Edited by Dago Red, 14 February 2018 - 08:33 AM.

[Sjorpha]

process, on 14 February 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

The challenge is a direct buff may make them viable at high tier play, but could completely overpower them among newer players. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely want a good reason to use them more often. My Timbers feel so wrong without their ears.

They've been nerfed several times in 2017 for no reason, they weren't a problem before those nerfs so it would at least be safe to buff them back up to 2016 level.

As for indirect fire, rather than remove or nerf it why not make it better and more rewarding to cooperate with the spotters. For example give the missiles the ability to redirect to new locks while still in the air. The game is supposed to have multiple combat roles, LRMs are the closest we have to artillery. Why should the artillery role be weak or forced to be in the front where it doesn't belong, that makes no sense. The only reason to be annoyed at LRMs currently is that they don't contribute enough to the win. I wouldn't mind holding locks for LRM boats in the back supporting me if only their incoming missile support were strong enough to be worth it.

Edited by Sjorpha, 14 February 2018 - 08:31 AM.

[Metus regem]

Sjorpha,

As I've said on many occasions, I love LRM boats on my team, they soften targets for me to kill, I also love LRM boats on the Red team, as they are easy kills. I really don't get the hate that people have for them, they have their uses, and when properly supported they are okay at T3/4/5 games... I'd just like to see them viable at higher ranked games....

[Sjorpha]

Metus regem, on 14 February 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

Sjorpha,

As I've said on many occasions, I love LRM boats on my team, they soften targets for me to kill, I also love LRM boats on the Red team, as they are easy kills. I really don't get the hate that people have for them, they have their uses, and when properly supported they are okay at T3/4/5 games... I'd just like to see them viable at higher ranked games....

Well I currently hate LRM boats on my team because LRMs are weak and each LRM rack represent a a bad tonnage investment that lowers the chance for us to win the match. I'd love them if they were good weapons.

[Stinger554]

Mystere, on 14 February 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

Let me restate then:

LRMs are supposed to be indirect fire weapons that do not need additional equipment or a spotter to fire indirectly.

Better?

Well they need a spotter now to fire indirectly so....

If it allows LRMs to actually be useful outside of very specific conditions and viable in higher tier matches I'm pretty sure that's an acceptable trade off.

Edited by Stinger554, 14 February 2018 - 09:02 AM.

[Asym]

nehebkau, on 14 February 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

I would humbly submit that LRMs are a zero skill weapon, and as such should have a zero skill counter. In higher levels of game play actually aiming and using direct fire weapons is far more fun than LRMing.... unless you are LRMing T4s and T5s -- that is fun.

Good grief...... All weapons require a skill to use... What lasers are a "mans" weapon because of "what"???? They are LOS = LOF at any distance.......now, that takes a lot of skill to just place an reticle on a target and you 100% of the time hit it: no lead, no ballistic superelevation or deflection......yep, that's skill all right...

LRMs/ATMs/SRMs/Streaks all take time to aim and are seriously "less efficient" than Lasers.....so, what in the high heavens are you alluding to about skill??? The only weapons that really take "skill" are the ballistic varieties because you do have to calculate lead and eleveation and they are a lot slower than Lasers...... Oy veh !

Edited by Asym, 14 February 2018 - 09:11 AM.

[Metus regem]

Asym, on 14 February 2018 - 09:09 AM, said:

Good grief...... All weapons require a skill to use... What lasers are a "mans" weapon because of "what"???? They are LOS = LOF at any distance.......now, that takes a lot of skill to just place an reticle on a target and you 100% of the time hit it: no lead, no ballistic superelevation or deflection......yep, that's skill all right...

LRMs/ATMs/SRMs/Streaks all take time to aim and are seriously "less efficient" than Lasers.....so, what in the high heavens are you alluding to about skill??? The only weapons that really take "skill" are the ballistic varieties because you do have to calculate lead and eleveation and they are a lot slower than Lasers...... Oy veh !

I'd almost lump the Gauss family into the laser group as they are nearly hit-scan with their speeds...

The hardest ones I found to get good with are the AC/10 and PPC family... if you can get them down, you are golden.

My record for longest shot with a hit, was in my Timber Wolf Delta with cERPPC's at 1500m... yest it took some serious leading on my part, but I did it.

[HammerMaster]

ROSS-128, on 14 February 2018 - 08:11 AM, said:

The only thing LRM indirect fire does with normal spotting is +1 to hit. It doesn't scatter onto adjacent hexes or anything like that (that's artillery), and it doesn't affect the Cluster Hit Table in any way. MWO doesn't really have any way to directly simulate a +1 to hit because we don't roll to hit... but in a way, the fact that you're counting on someone else to hold a lock kind of does stand-in for that, since if they drop their lock before the missiles arrive, they won't hit.

In fact, C3 does absolutely nothing for LRMs:



The only exception is that the C3 Master unit has a built-in TAG, but that doesn't do anything a normal TAG wouldn't do. TAG is its own thing, and TAG is what eliminates the +1 to hit.

Really, you should be more careful to look things up when you're on a forum where some posters might have the rulebook sitting on their desk next to them.

It's great that you have the book next to you. Can you get Paul and Russ a copy?

Also recall our discussion about my out of date and now spotty knowledge. My apologies for no longer being the rules lawyer I once was. I think if we all chip in we can afford the $40.00 each for them two.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 February 2018 - 09:38 AM.

[Novakaine]

Just reduce the spread and I'd be satisfied.
As far as Tier Potato they need learn the same way we did.
But it's to the point I hardly even care anymore.

[ROSS-128]

HammerMaster, on 14 February 2018 - 09:22 AM, said:

It's great that you have the book next to you. Can you get Paul and Russ a copy?

Also recall our discussion about my out of date and now spotty knowledge. My apologies for no longer being the rules lawyer I once was. I think if we all chip in we can afford the $40.00 each for them two.

If your memory is so warped by nostalgia glasses that you're ending up just straight up wrong all the time, then you should probably stop relying on it and instead have the prudence to look things up.

Exercise some self-awareness by reminding yourself of how much you've forgotten, rather than charging ahead with the unwavering conviction that you must be right.