50 replies to this topic

[BlueFlames]

From the April 17, 2018 patch notes:

Quote

With this said, we are still razor focused on the impact of such a change, and while over the long run we want to see an increase the usability of this weapon at higher levels of play...

Increasing LRM velocity will not make the weapon system more appealing to high-level players. LRMs--even LRM5 launchers--spread damage badly. Gauss rifles don't. PPCs don't. Short-duration lasers don't. Gauss rifles, PPCs, and short-duration lasers seem to be the favored weapon systems among high-level players at the moment for some reason.

LRMs' general inability to quickly kill a target with focused, single-component damage is why high-level players do not mount them. The difficulty in tickling a target operating near cover, 900m from the launcher is not a primary concern for high-level players.

Historical analogue: Base spread on SRM4s was nerfed, and the spread reduction on Artemis was nerfed. Since then, among high-level players, SRM brawling has become quite a bit less common. SRMs become less able to do focused damage, and they simultaneously become less appealing to high-level players. Funny how that works out.

If you're really interested in increasing the usability of LRMs at higher levels of play, rather than just making them more tempting as noob bait in the mech lab, then you've got to decrease the spread.

Also, a petty nitpick for the patch note author: Razors are sharp. Lasers are focused. Don't mix your metaphors.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Velocity also helps in general just for hitting people before they have chances to get back into cover. Even at close ranges where people would be using LRMs, such as say 400m, LRMs moving at 160ms take 2.5 seconds to get there while 190ms ones take 2.1 seconds. Its really not much honestly, but its something. I wish PGI was as hamfisted in the buffing of bad things as they are in absolutely destroying good things (rip cspl losing 1/3rd damage while LRMs can't manage to get even a full 20% buff to velocity).

Also razors have their edges focused into a very sharp point.

[Brain Cancer]

Velocity does a few things.

It slightly reduces AMS effectiveness, as faster missiles get less of the damage-over-time applied to them.

It increases accuracy a bit, because less time to target.

It's still the same rate of fire, still the same terrible spread damage, so the only real difference is now there's a heartbeat less time before the INCOMING MISSILES alarm shuts off and all of your armor turns that delicate ghostly shade of yellow.

Still, baby steps. I can understand PGI being leery about this, because inevitably people will scream LURMAGEDDON, even though folks like me have been flinging even faster guided missiles from our ATMs without issues.

[OmniFail]

Lol. Dose anyone really believe that this will stop the extinction of LRM5s or the near extintion of LRM10s?

For the small lauchers the problem is AMS and ghost heat.
For larger launchers it is the spread that deprigates the effectiveness.

PGI stop being blind.
Stop listening to community members that have baised opinions and limited experiance that leads to no more than casual observations.

Edited by OmniFail, 14 April 2018 - 11:03 AM.

[FupDup]

The problem has always been the inherent lock-on autoaim mechanics from 2012 onwards. Stuff like spread, velocity, etc. are just diversions. Lurm balance with always teeter-totter from one extreme to another (OP and UP) while the mechanics remain as they are.

[OmniFail]

FupDup, on 14 April 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

The problem has always been the inherent lock-on autoaim mechanics from 2012 onwards. Stuff like spread, velocity, etc. are just diversions. Lurm balance with always teeter-totter from one extreme to another (OP and UP) while the mechanics remain as they are.

How does auto aim degrade the efficency of LRMs. It seems your opinion is biased because you dont like the lock on mechanic.

[FupDup]

OmniFail, on 14 April 2018 - 11:06 AM, said:

How does auto aim degrade the efficency of LRMs. It seems your opinion is biased because you dont like the lock on mechanic.

Because it means two things:

1. You can't aim at the sections you want to prioritize. Being able to pick off specific body parts is a really really important aspect of the MW series and is very useful against things like IS XL or asymmetrical builds.

2. The weapon base stats are being balanced (held down) on the assumption that they require less aiming effort than other things. Also of note is the inherent lack of risk (no exposure to enemy fire) associated with indirect fire that the weapon also has to be balanced around.

[OmniFail]

FupDup, on 14 April 2018 - 11:10 AM, said:

Because it means two things:

1. You can't aim at the sections you want to prioritize. Being able to pick off specific body parts is a really really important aspect of the MW series and is very useful against things like IS XL or asymmetrical builds.

2. The weapon base stats are being balanced (held down) on the assumption that they require less aiming effort than other things. Also of note is the inherent lack of risk (no exposure to enemy fire) associated with indirect fire that the weapon also has to be balanced around.

The lack of risk of the IDF mechanic is a counter for direct fire. Get over it bro.

[Thorqemada]

FupDup, on 14 April 2018 - 11:10 AM, said:

Because it means two things:

1. You can't aim at the sections you want to prioritize. Being able to pick off specific body parts is a really really important aspect of the MW series and is very useful against things like IS XL or asymmetrical builds.

2. The weapon base stats are being balanced (held down) on the assumption that they require less aiming effort than other things. Also of note is the inherent lack of risk (no exposure to enemy fire) associated with indirect fire that the weapon also has to be balanced around.

Lack of Risk is not the case as there is risk to take to aquire Targets but the risk is not necessary on the Mech armed with LRM...and UAVs be shot down quick...the most riskfree weapon on the game is the strikes consumables.

[barnmaddo]

You sure the increased velocity won't effect the damage spread? Assuming a simulation like level of programming the spread will increase over flight time, so a faster velocity and shorter flight time would also mean a reduced spread.

[sycocys]

Velocity helps, but its only a small part of why LRMs are bad.

They could make LRMs moderately good with damage, decent speed and allowing the other factors (tag/narc/los/artemis) dial down the spread a lot more and still force them to not be op in low tiers by relegating them to actual support status via implementing global cooldown triggers and/or massive ghost heat penalties like ac20s got railed with.

[Novakaine]

Novakaine approves of this increase.
A small step, but a understandable one.
Thanks

[kailii]

Just remove the ability to target LRMs indirectly based on a random blue Mech without special equipment for the job.
Then we can start to talk LRM parameters.

Heck, this would even make sense lorewise.

[Mcgral18]

OmniFail, on 14 April 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

The lack of risk of the IDF mechanic is a counter for direct fire. Get over it bro.

We get over it by ignoring it entirely


Bad weapons aren't good for the game
RIP Small class lasers

[HammerMaster]

It's a HALF measure at best. Yes velocity is needed but they already stated an almost OUTRIGHT REFUSAL to rework the LRM system WE HAVE ALL CALLED FOR! FOR A LONG TIME!

[Brizna]

PATCH NOTES: "we feel confident in providing LRM's with some much needed QoL velocity increases"

Ok, wait a second here, velocity increase is not a QoL thing, it is a direct buff . With that out of the way I don't think LRMs are going to become OP any time soon but travel time to target is probably the most important quality for LRMs.

[TheMadTypist]

I don't have a problem with this, LRM's are a tad too situational right now. Velocity is already one of the most important nodes that I go for in the skill tree on a bunch of builds, and they'll be even better for LRM's after this.

I also just bought an Atlas-K with dual AMS and outfitted with AMS nodes not so long ago, so bring on the rain! Given how useful they've been on the Atlas I was already considering adding them to a few other builds.

Now if only they'd add C-Streak LRM's: Clan LRM's that can be as good as IS LRM's, because they weigh the same.

[Brain Cancer]

OmniFail, on 14 April 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

Lol. Dose anyone really believe that this will stop the extinction of LRM5s or the near extintion of LRM10s?

For the small lauchers the problem is AMS and ghost heat.
For larger launchers it is the spread that deprigates the effectiveness.

PGI stop being blind.
Stop listening to community members that have baised opinions and limited experiance that leads to no more than casual observations.

It's actually a bit of a boost due to higher velocity reducing AMS exposure time, but PGI's implemention of AMS is radically different from tabletop. TT means AMS chews up roughly the same percentage of any given salvo, meaning it scales evenly vs all launchers. PGI just made it straight up DOT that shot missiles, insuring it'd be overly effective versus smaller launches versus massive salvo firing.

kailii, on 14 April 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

Just remove the ability to target LRMs indirectly based on a random blue Mech without special equipment for the job.
Then we can start to talk LRM parameters.

Heck, this would even make sense lorewise.

Not at all. Slap anyone who says "BUT IT TAKES C3 TO IDF", as all it takes is an infantry squad with binoculars and a walkie-talkie spotting the target. 3025-era machines didn't need diddly-squat other than a friendly with line of sight, and that's in an era where TAG and NARC were lost technology, never mind C3 networking.

[Brain Cancer]

TheMadTypist, on 14 April 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with this, LRM's are a tad too situational right now. Velocity is already one of the most important nodes that I go for in the skill tree on a bunch of builds, and they'll be even better for LRM's after this.

I also just bought an Atlas-K with dual AMS and outfitted with AMS nodes not so long ago, so bring on the rain! Given how useful they've been on the Atlas I was already considering adding them to a few other builds.

Now if only they'd add C-Streak LRM's: Clan LRM's that can be as good as IS LRM's, because they weigh the same.

Ironically, Streak LRMs are incapable of indirect fire, which basically makes them higher-velocity versions of ATMs without the damage bonus. And they don't get to full production till 3079.

[OmniFail]

sycocys, on 14 April 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

Velocity helps, but its only a small part of why LRMs are bad.

They could make LRMs moderately good with damage, decent speed and allowing the other factors (tag/narc/los/artemis) dial down the spread a lot more and still force them to not be op in low tiers by relegating them to actual support status via implementing global cooldown triggers and/or massive ghost heat penalties like ac20s got railed with.

So many aspects of your post how far removed from the issue you really are.

First of all damage. Small launchers do almost no damage because of AMS. Small launchers already are taxed with massive ghost heat penalties as you suggested. If you don't believe me go try to punch though AMS fire with LRM5s when you are limited to firing two launchers at a time without incurring the massive ghost heat penalties. LRM10s are not much better.

Secondly, with massed large launchers, say 60 or more tubes, I really don't have a hard time pulling big damage numbers. I have a problem killing people because of the spread. As most LRM haters have pointed out its not all about the damage.

Between your suggested massive ghost heat penalties and you silly global cool down idea you really purposed more more nerfs to fix a under performing weapon.

Edited by OmniFail, 14 April 2018 - 08:35 PM.