36 replies to this topic

[0Jiggs0]

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) until reaching a certain distance, where they descend towards the target. The continual increase in altitude allows the LRMs to clear terrain obstacles for indirect fire, but also results in an excessive flight time. By the time the missiles arrive, the target has moved to safety. 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.

Proposed Solution: Reduce the maximum altitude of LRM flight paths, by setting a lower "cruising" altitude. When launched, an LRM will climb for a short distance to clear allies and nearby cover. Once the cruising altitude has been reached, the missiles then fly directly towards their target at this altitude until at range for their descent. This behavior would place missiles on more direct paths, reducing flight time and improving overall performance. Bonuses to velocity from skills or quirks would also apply more evenly, as the disparity between short range and long range flights would more closely resemble the targets' distances.

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.

[sycocys]

Reducing the arc just makes them bad versions of streak missiles.

[El Bandito]

Or you can just use Clan mechs and get reduced altitudes for those LRMs.

Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 February 2018 - 03:26 AM.

[OmniFail]

PSA

All fixing LRM threads and purchases of LRM mechs are now defunct and suspended due to PGIs philosophy of n00b coddling. All bad LRMs are bad threads are no longer the fault of LRM boaters. It is a feature not a bug.

[Kiiyor]

OOOOOH LRM THREAD!

[Khobai]

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.

Edited by Khobai, 15 February 2018 - 04:04 AM.

[PocketYoda]

El Bandito, on 15 February 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Or you can just use Clan mechs and get reduced altitudes for those LRMs.

Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.

What exactly is their strength other than taking peoples money?

[El Bandito]

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

What exactly is their strength other than taking peoples money?

They are not even that good at taking people's money.

[Curccu]

sycocys, on 15 February 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Reducing the arc just makes them bad versions of streak missiless. ATMs

FTFY.

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

Edited by Curccu, 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM.

[sycocys]

Curccu, on 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM, said:

FTFY.

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

That's fair, hadn't considered ATMs.

Oddly I have to agree with Paul on LRMs, there's just no way to make them a viable weapon without destroying T4/5. Maybe ever so slightly better, but if they can't be hard countered with afk items like AMS the people that can't figure out what rocks are will rage.\

-- well there's ways, but it would require them to rebuild the mech to mech communications system and add things like slotting targeting computers to share data/locks (which should be a thing anyhow tbh)

Edited by sycocys, 15 February 2018 - 06:45 AM.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Curccu, on 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM, said:

FTFY.

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

but then again battletech and mwo-bt in general.. 2 very different things.

yeah, lurms in BT are no arty, it's only their "better than no shot at all" alternative shot @indirect fire
normally, they are fired directly at the enemy. with LOS.
yet in mwo ppl treat them like fire and forget arty, drop them from 900+ meters and wonder why nothing happens.. even after several years of ingame lurming most don't seem to know better @the majority of longtime-lurmers.

IMO lurms are fine where they are now; usable on some maps and quite decent if you lurm from 250 instead of extreme range.
any buff to them that makes them good in the hands of hiders "people with way more caution than necessary" - will make them "totally OP" (not that I think that, but that's gonna be in the forum then) in the hands of people who are fine with em now.

Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 15 February 2018 - 06:47 AM.

[Water Bear]

Let us not forget the last time they tried to rebalance LRMs by turning up the flight speed. I realize it has been a few years now. The result was the so-called "lurmpocalypse." Every match was packed with missile boats, and there was non-stop spam. Those of us who lived through these dark days in the times of PUG wish never to return.

Reducing cruise altitude is a beard-scratching suggestion. Might just work.

Edited by Water Bear, 15 February 2018 - 07:06 AM.

[Curccu]

Captain Caveman DE, on 15 February 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

IMO lurms are fine where they are now; usable on some maps and quite decent if you lurm from 250 instead of extreme range.

They are awesome if map is called Polar Highlands, fine on some maps and almost 100% useless on some maps (Crimson, HPG, Rubellite, Mining) with massive amount of cover, tunnels & cave like formations... If we could shoot them with LOS without any arc they might get that fine category from some of those maps.

[Asym]

El Bandito, on 15 February 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Or you can just use Clan mechs and get reduced altitudes for those LRMs.

Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.

I'm with El Bandito: they can't do anything about it....it appears the game engine is so messed up and over-clocked that additional capabilities take too much processing to render effectively. And, balance is downward to even save more processing potential as the battle space becomes even more 2D.....

They must not have the staff that are capable or, their business interest is only meck pack sales.......not customer game play satisfaction.....

[Curccu]

They did make few years back that swirling flight pattern for artemis (which ended up being one of those Lurmpocalypses) and just ATMs last summer, so I think they are capable of removing arc when shot with LOS if they want, that want is hard to achieve...



edit: Konivings video added with that swirling artemis pattern.

Edited by Curccu, 15 February 2018 - 07:33 AM.

[Tordin]

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

[Variant1]

no buffs only nerfs!
(zoidbergs away)

[Brain Cancer]

It's ironic.

A weapon system that virtually nobody uses it's no-brainer countermeasure (AMS) for is considered too dangerous to buff, because no-brainer targets would be in trouble- not even considering AMS in the first place.

And LRMs should at least fire flat in no-lock mode. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd go a long way. Other than that, a velocity increase is seriously needed.

[HGAK47]

Is it me or are lurms a really really odd weapon system? They have the uncanny ability to completly crush enemy morale on the odd occasion that the stars allign yet otherwise seem ineffective and a waste of tonnage?

[Brain Cancer]

Right now, LRM effectiveness is generally tied to enemy incompetence or group-teamwork monkeying around that you'd call a miracle in QP.