36 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

But Like El Bandito said earlier IMO LRMs should not have arc at all if shot with LOS, like MW3 intro (2m 39s).

but lrms already cant compete with direct fire weapons

why make direct fire lrms worse?

[Relishcakes]

If your target moved to safety and wasn't hit by LRM fire it means you or whoever you were relying on, broke lock. The cure for this? Stop LRMing from max range.



NEXT!

[BenAran]

I have reason to assume that LRMs and ATMs both are not coded that way and that the altitude has no influence on travel time.
I would need to see if they actually do, but from what I could tell, the velocity of LRMs is only on the horizontal axis, the vertical axis is absolutely meaningless.

[Sjorpha]

0Jiggs0, on 15 February 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

Increasing missile velocity is not an effective solution. When comparing the flight paths towards a 400m and 800m target, the actual distance traveled by each salvo of missiles will differ by more than what the distance between the targets would indicate, due to the more indirect path taken by the missiles fired at the 800m target. Adjusting velocity for better performance against 800m targets would be excessive for 400m targets, while adjusting for 400m targets would do little to improve performance at longer ranges.

I think increasing velocity would be a good solution, it would take a very extreme increase to be "excessive" at any range, it's perfectly reasonable for the velocity to go up to 250m/s.

Though the most interesting solution IMO would be a gradually scaling velocity, make it gain more and more speed as it travels, making it better at long range but not that much faster at short ranges. For example it could be 150m/s at launch and scale up to 500m/s at maximum range. It would look really cool as well.

I'm not a fan of reducing the arc, it's a part of the weapons identity that it goes up and comes down at you from above, it would be more boring to me if it didn't do that.

Edited by Sjorpha, 16 February 2018 - 02:26 AM.

[Kroete]

0Jiggs0, on 15 February 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

Likely Argument Against: Reducing LRM flight path altitude will impair the weapon's indirect fire capabilities, as the missiles will no longer be able to clear terrain as consistently. This is the defining feature of the weapon, which should be enhanced, not diminished.

Rebuttal: Though long-range indirect fire is the defining role of the weapon, that role is not only it's least effective in the game's current state, but also the least likely to be elevated into relevance through design changes (see Paul Inouye's latest interview in NoGutsNoGalaxy). The proposed reduction in flight path altitude would improve the LRM's performance as mid to long-range direct fire-support, where it appears to be most effective. This proposal builds upon the areas where LRMs are most consistent, at the cost of those areas where it is the least.

You want to make lrms like atms with less speed, range .damage and min. range?
Why?

Edited by Kroete, 16 February 2018 - 02:31 AM.

[Metus regem]

Samial, on 15 February 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

What exactly is their strength other than taking peoples money?

Art work?

[Curccu]

Khobai, on 15 February 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

but lrms already cant compete with direct fire weapons

why make direct fire lrms worse?

Worse? Better.

[frumpylumps]

I for one will be happy to see no buffs to these long range ez-mode weapons that don't require aiming skills nor exposing yourself to danger. Fighting in the shadow of a rock or building the entire game doesn't seem viable if your goal is to win.

Also, how is AMS a "hard counter" when it shoots down 3 missiles out of the 20, or is that wrong?

Edited by frumpylumps, 18 February 2018 - 12:02 PM.

[InspectorG]

0Jiggs0, on 15 February 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

Problem: The flight paths of LRMs significantly increase in altitude the further they fly (a maximum height may already exist, but I am not aware of it) ...

Solution and PRO TIP:
Use a TAG

Use LRMs under 400m. Under 300 is better.

[Brain Cancer]

frumpylumps, on 18 February 2018 - 11:49 AM, said:

I for one will be happy to see no buffs to these long range ez-mode weapons that don't require aiming skills nor exposing yourself to danger. Fighting in the shadow of a rock or building the entire game doesn't seem viable if your goal is to win.

Also, how is AMS a "hard counter" when it shoots down 3 missiles out of the 20, or is that wrong?

Bit more than that, depending on whether it's Clan or IS. Triple AMS will gun down 20 missiles to nothing, for example.

It's just that nobody uses AMS, because there's only two weapons it really does anything to, and one of them is nearly useless. If AMS became common, LRMs would literally be blown away- but because LRMs suck, AMS use is virtually limited to funbuilds.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Tordin, on 15 February 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

Im stalking the Reddit forums from time to time. And by them and thanks to us, the Brown Sea, PGI WONT make LRMS competive due to that it would just murder low tier (4, 5) players. Judging by the latest podcast and Pauls statements.

Because god forbid people can adapt and get good instead of whining "Nerf!!!" at ANYTHING that hurt their pinky toe when there so many counters to lurms. Its insane...

The day when any weapon could go competive, oh what a day that would be

Uh, you realize that you're making a 'git gud' argument for a weapon that's defined mostly by removing the skill-based element of delivering the damage to the target once you pull the trigger, right?

LRMs have so many counters because of how trivially easy they are to use to achieve free damage for no risk on targets that aren't within the firing mech's LOS.

The only way LRMs can get buffed to be better at higher tiers is if their mechanics change so that people who take more risks exposing themselves to return fire improve their performance, such as better grouping or a different flight path when training the reticle on a target within LOS.

[Thermoluminescence]

I don't understand why LRMs are meant to be a Teir 4/5 weapon.

Make them more difficult.

I am Teir 4/5 and most maps are just constant LRM spam. It is honestly frustrating to play in. It is basically psychological warfare due to all the messages and noise those things make.

I wouldn't be sad if the weapon was just removed from the game altogether.

[Lykaon]

Khobai, on 15 February 2018 - 03:57 AM, said:

Increasing the velocity on LRMs just seems easier. To at least 200m/s if not 240m/s

Nerf the base tracking/spread on indirect LRMs by 25%-50% so its not as effective (but buff tag/narc by the same amount)

Also reduce the cooldown on LRMs by 20%-25% and increase the damage proportionally. That would make LRMs less spammy and youd have to time your volleys better.

Those changes arnt gonna bring about an LRMpocalypse even in T4-T5.

Increasing velocity would solve the OP's issue but...I suspect the OP's actual adjenda is nerfing LRM indirect fire and b lowering flight altitudes more cover becomes effective further reducing the performance of the WORST weapon system in MWo.

As for nerfs to tracking speed for indirect fire...why? LRMs are pretty much the only weapon players can actively dodge because of the 160 mps velocity coupled with launch warnings. Make them any worse and ,well LRMs would be worse than simply terrible.

Buffing NARC and TAG is not an answer but another indirect nerf to indirect fire. Requiring either LOS targeting from the launcher or a dedicated spotter (second player) in order to avoid the worthless targeting of your proposed up to 50% nerf to tracking speed. This would make LRMs nigh worthless in solo queue for indirect fire because you would be playing the lottery as to IF a friendly spotter would be on your team and seeing how I predict this style of game play (playing a dedicated spotter in solo queue) being super rare it wouldn't happen with frequency to be worth playing either a spotter or lurmer.

Increasing cooldown ( I believe you meant to type increase and not decrease? ) Actual effective LRM use isn't all that spammy.i It's noobtubers who spam launches at every fleeting lock firing at ghosts and wasting ammo (this is why you see LRM boats with excessive amounts of ammo and insufficent back up weapons)

I see a couple of issue with increasing cooldowns.

1) reduction in rate of fire means timing opertunity to hit with available to fire becomes yet another hurdle to leap for LRMing. It's already pretty daunting to have a target lock long enough to fire hold it long enough to hit and retain the lock for a second volley. Increase the time between volleys and it's pretty much a sure bet no one gets hit twice off a retained lock.

2) Reduced rate of fire is directly related to reduced threat of damage and as such reduces LRM's effectivness as area denial weapons that actually present a real threat. If the cooldowns become long enough factoring lock on times and chances of retaining locks for follow up fire LRMs will be less effective at suppression and pinning down the enemy.

They suck enough and are bearly functional now when used on low skill targets or when used by high experience players on skilled targets. I fear screwing around with something ussualy creates other problems.

[Khobai]

Quote

As for nerfs to tracking speed for indirect fire...why?

if you buff velocity you have to nerf indirect fire slightly to compensate for that. Its a tradeoff. better velocity for worse spread/tracking with indirect LRMs.

tag/narc should be buffed by the same amount as the nerf though, which makes tag/narc that much better

Quote

2) Reduced rate of fire is directly related to reduced threat of damage and as such reduces LRM's effectivness as area denial weapons that actually present a real threat. If the cooldowns become long enough factoring lock on times and chances of retaining locks for follow up fire LRMs will be less effective at suppression and pinning down the enemy.

LRMs arnt meant to be suppression weapons, thats the whole point.

that should be the role of weapons like AC2s

Allowing LRMs to function as suppression weapons is one of the major reasons theyre so dominant in lower tiers. Its exactly what needs to be fixed.

Edited by Khobai, 18 February 2018 - 03:57 PM.

[Curccu]

frumpylumps, on 18 February 2018 - 11:49 AM, said:

Also, how is AMS a "hard counter" when it shoots down 3 missiles out of the 20, or is that wrong?

And you have 12 mechs in your team, do that math with 3 x 12. + some mech can have 2-4 AMS hardpoints so might be even more.

[Khobai]

Quote

Also, how is AMS a "hard counter" when it shoots down 3 missiles out of the 20, or is that wrong?

AMS actually protects friendly mechs behind you better than it protects yourself

because missiles have to pass through the full ams radius to hit friendly mechs behind you

so when your whole team carries ams it shoots down missiles pretty effectively

[Vellron2005]

I would like it if LRMs traveld in a straight line if no obstacles and in LOS of target, and the way they do now if no LOS and high cover..

That would be great..

Otherwise, as-is is ok..