Jump to content

Lrm Rework - A Page From Howitzers


9 replies to this topic

Poll: Rework LRMs (9 member(s) have cast votes)

LRM Rework.

  1. Yes to entire concept (2 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  2. Yes to only stats buff (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. No (7 votes [77.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 77.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 29 March 2018 - 06:25 PM

Quote

Goal of the Rework:

As Paul said with the LRM design, it is balanced on the low levels of play than high levels of play, in which makes it a monster to noobs and potatoes, and a joke to experienced and veterans. Now i know that my efforts may be moot, as it may not change the minds of PGI, but I do have an idea of how it could be handled.

The Homing design coupled with Indirect-Fire capability, produces a feast-or-famine dichoctomy. This makes the success of the weapon less contingent to how the player launches the weapon, but the positioning of the user and the target, but with the target being less adept with positioning, the LRMs successes is usually being about the targets being bad pilots, than good LRMers being good pilots.

The aim of this change attempts to shift a chunk of skill from positioning, into how the LRMs are launched.

Quote

The System:

Howitzers, these are field-artillery pieces in which the elevation could be changed -- to fire straight like a gun, or to fire at a steep angle to lob to targets and over obstacles.

Now applied to LRMs, this means that LRMs could now be direct-fired, but to be indirect-fired means the LRMs should be shot into the sky and then it will lob towards the target and clear the obstacle as indirect-fire. The sharper the angle is, the longer it takes for the LRMs to hit it's target.

This means that potatoes that haphazardly indirect-fires with little thought in their elevation by maximizing it would be minimizing their chances of hitting the target, while maximizing the travel time, time which could be used to get into cover. The entry-level players that aren't yet accustomed to aiming, would only shoot forward and is incapable of indirect fire yet, that prevents complete domination of entry-level.

This also means that the LRMs can be fired with straight trajectory, that gives it better direct-fire capability, and synergy with other direct-fire weapons. While to indirect-fire the LRMs also mean less synergy with direct-fire weapons, further relegating it to support role.

Quote

Targetting Changes:

Retained Missile Lock is no longer required, only Target Lock. So long as one of your team has Target Lock, the missiles will home on their targets. Weapons are individually locked and have to reacquire lock every shot, but they automatically lock as soon as the user (not ally) has a Target-Lock, you don't have to place the reticle at your enemy. This allows homing weapons to be fired like direct-fire weapons, but still homing.

This also allows other homing weapons to be balanced by their ability to lock quickly. This allows players to mix-and-match with Artemis and non-Artemis launchers like Artemis LRMs but with standard SRMs, and the streaks no longer piggy-backing on the lock-speed bonus Artemis.

Quote

Stat Changes:

- Velocity: 240 (From 160)
- Damage/Missile: 1.5 (From 1)
- Cooldown: +50%
- Spread: Normalized to 4
- Ammo/Ton: 120 (From 180)

While the velocity seems to be very very high, actual travel-time is variable as travel-distance is lengthened. For example (assuming semi-circular trajectory), a distance of 400 meters, with an obstacle of 200 meters to clear, would mean the missile would travel 628.3185 meters, or extra 228.3185 meters.

The increase in both damage and cooldown makes the weapon a lot less spammable, in which players would be less acquainted in just shooting thoughtlessly.


tl;dr
- LRM Rework = players are in control of LRM's trajectory, allowing the LRMs to be direct-fire by shooting straight, or be indirect-fire by shooting in the sky, balanced by travel time
- Targetting Rework = semi-fire and forget, needing only target-lock by any one of allies or the player, no more retained missile lock.
- Targetting Rework = homing missile launchers (LRMs, ATMs, SSRMs) individually lock and needs to reacquire lock every shot, and locks automatically to any enemy with target lock of the player, and no longer needs reticle.
- Basic Stats boost, LRMs have more damage but with longer cooldown.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 29 March 2018 - 06:36 PM.


#2 Ballistic Panicmode

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Scattershot
  • 53 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 31 March 2018 - 09:31 AM

Right now I think IS LRM's are about right.

I do think indirect targeting could be removed from Clan LRM's. They already enjoy the advantages of half weight and reduced minimum range, and indirect fire is very un-Clanlike behavior in my mind.

(Yes, I do expect howls of rage from certain quarters)

#3 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 01 April 2018 - 01:17 AM

View PostBallistic Panicmode, on 31 March 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

Right now I think IS LRM's are about right.

I do think indirect targeting could be removed from Clan LRM's. They already enjoy the advantages of half weight and reduced minimum range, and indirect fire is very un-Clanlike behavior in my mind.

(Yes, I do expect howls of rage from certain quarters)


And what is Clanlike behavior to you? As far as we're concerned, we have to balance the factions, and one aspect of it is having strategies available for both, such as indirect fire support.

They already have ATMs, and removing C-LRM indirect fire ability means C-LRMs would be direct fire and means it would be even better. In addition, that's a rigid, biased, self-serving idea riddled with clan-hate that has little to do with balancing the factions. Clans wouldn't have the same access to weapons and thereby tactics if Indirect-Fire were removed from C-LRM.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 01 April 2018 - 01:44 AM.


#4 Ch_R0me

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Named
  • The Named
  • 656 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationIn DireStar with Heavy Naval PPC

Posted 01 April 2018 - 03:26 AM

View PostBallistic Panicmode, on 31 March 2018 - 09:31 AM, said:

(...) They already enjoy the advantages of half weight and reduced minimum range, and indirect fire is very un-Clanlike behavior in my mind. (Yes, I do expect howls of rage from certain quarters)


So replace LRM's with Streak LRM's (SLRM's); in terms of weight it would be nerfed (same tonnage as IS LRMs), and it would be OK, right?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Mech Mortars... ;)

#5 Ballistic Panicmode

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Scattershot
  • 53 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 01 April 2018 - 04:27 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 01 April 2018 - 01:17 AM, said:


And what is Clanlike behavior to you? As far as we're concerned, we have to balance the factions, and one aspect of it is having strategies available for both, such as indirect fire support.



Well, my idea of clanlike behavior comes from years of BT lore- Clan warriors value single combat and consider IS tactics to be dishonorable.

Perhaps I should have said indirect spotting of LRM's - requiring Clan Mechs to have line of sight to achieve locks.

Edited by Ballistic Panicmode, 01 April 2018 - 04:28 AM.


#6 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 01 April 2018 - 08:13 PM

View PostBallistic Panicmode, on 01 April 2018 - 04:27 AM, said:

Well, my idea of clanlike behavior comes from years of BT lore- Clan warriors value single combat and consider IS tactics to be dishonorable.

Perhaps I should have said indirect spotting of LRM's - requiring Clan Mechs to have line of sight to achieve locks.



Same issue, Clan is now heavily negatively impacted, because you're preventing it from employing a legitimate strategy of indirect support fire.

#7 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 03 April 2018 - 10:46 AM

Let's leave LRM's alone for now and fix the bugs in Faction Play that make players want to throw their computers across the room first. Okay. Thanks.

#8 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 03 April 2018 - 03:40 PM

View PostKalimaster, on 03 April 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

Let's leave LRM's alone for now and fix the bugs in Faction Play that make players want to throw their computers across the room first. Okay. Thanks.


Hows about get your own thread?

#9 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,612 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 06 April 2018 - 08:35 AM

Really, just make Artemis and LRM missile lock work as stated in BattleTech.

LRMs are completely self-guided like a Sidewinder missile. You just get 'tone' and fire and forget, the LRM handles all tracking from that point to impact.

Artemis LRMs with line-of-sight travel with only a small arc because Artemis is an infra-red laser guidance assist to the LRM missile assuring clear line of sight travel.

This idea of a flight assist based on launch angle is acceptable, however. Just most of it should already be supplied by canon 'fire and forget' LRM guidance and canon Artemis functions. Except of course that it has been excluded in MWO's case.

#10 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 07:57 PM

View PostLightfoot, on 06 April 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:

Really, just make Artemis and LRM missile lock work as stated in BattleTech.

LRMs are completely self-guided like a Sidewinder missile. You just get 'tone' and fire and forget, the LRM handles all tracking from that point to impact.

Artemis LRMs with line-of-sight travel with only a small arc because Artemis is an infra-red laser guidance assist to the LRM missile assuring clear line of sight travel.

This idea of a flight assist based on launch angle is acceptable, however. Just most of it should already be supplied by canon 'fire and forget' LRM guidance and canon Artemis functions. Except of course that it has been excluded in MWO's case.


I'd like Fire and Forget systems for LRMs, i really do. But it seems like PGI doesn't like that idea for the LRMs, so my compromise is just not require constant missile lock but just LOS to retain guidance, with initial missile lock to fire.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users