17 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Quote

Basic Idea:

- LRMs don't need missile lock to home on targets, only target-lock.
- MissileLock grants +100% tracking-strength, but cannot lock without LOS.
- NARC and TAG allows Missile-Lock without LOS.
- 240 Missile-Speed
- 2x LRM Damage but +50% CD
- 120 LRM ammo/ton

The point of these changes is to reflect the supposedly penalty for indirect-fires, versus direct-fires, while also allowing missiles to be a bit more reliable.

Missile-Lock is not entirely needed, but it makes locks a lot more reliable and therefore rewarding. Because it's only possible with LOS or with NARC or TAG, it allows it to be more powerful. And because of that, successful indirect-firing needs NARC and TAG, while non-missile-lock indirect-fires would just be effective only on passive targets or for simply fire suppression.

No, SSRMs still need missile-lock to fire. Artemis, would still be relevant with faster lock time and smaller missile spread.

This entire system makes use of the missile-lock system to make direct-fires and narcs/tags more rewarding, while being less complicated and easier to use for noobs -- they just need extra hoops to be successful at higher-skill environment, else indirect-firing would still be useful on noobs-vs-noobs.

Lastly the damage tweak, is there to make the LRMs a bit more punchier and less spammable, because it being a suppression-centric weapon is precisely why it's a terrible weapon. If you want suppression, chainfire, even if it makes the weapon less potent -- better than being impotent by default.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 06 June 2018 - 01:20 AM.

[El Bandito]

I personally want LRMs to have small homing capability towards the nearest enemy at certain range when dumb-fired. That way it can harm those static players who are hiding behind cover, without the need for a lock, but with less damage potential.

Edited by El Bandito, 05 June 2018 - 07:08 PM.

[Vellron2005]

I disagree with:

- MissileLock grants +100% tracking-strength, but cannot lock without LOS.
- NARC and TAG allows Missile-Lock without LOS.

I think it would be better to keep it as-is, but to let TAG and NARC to allow specific mech components to be hit. That would make them much more useful..

In addition, make LRMs direct fire like MRMs when no lock (so straight, no high arc, so we can use them in HPG basement for example), and indirect when locked-on. That would make them useful in direct fire situations too, as well as in defending against lights (MRMs are great against lights right now)

I strongly agree with increasing ammo/ton..

Also, lock-on arcs need to be 45% again.. (as they used to be before the nerf), as to allow LRM bending.. That would make them higher-skill for those that want it, and still usable by new players.

Just imagine how skill-oriented they would be it you could perform trick shots from behind cover, around a corner, and hit the target's CT via friendly TAG.. that would be very nice, no?

Edited by Vellron2005, 04 June 2018 - 10:55 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 04 June 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

I disagree with:

- MissileLock grants +100% tracking-strength, but cannot lock without LOS.
- NARC and TAG allows Missile-Lock without LOS.

I think it would be better to keep it as-is, but to let TAG and NARC to allow specific mech components to be hit. That would make them much more useful.

The point of it is to reflect the penalty for indirect fire -- or at least the bonus for direct fire. Component-targeting is good.

Vellron2005, on 04 June 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

Also, lock-on arcs need to be 45% again.. (as they used to be before the nerf), as to allow LRM bending.. That would make them higher-skill for those that want it, and still usable by new players.

Just imagine how skill-oriented they would be it you could perform trick shots from behind cover, around a corner, and hit the target's CT via friendly TAG.. that would be very nice, no?

I suggested a dang LRM-bending centric rework, and you entitled-LRM-twats just shat on it by adhominem.

I'd like to have that 45% too, but really it's not exactly within the topic which is the rework.

[Kaeb Odellas]

I feel like the biggest help to LRMs as a direct fire weapon would be to either make them fire-and-forget, so you don't need to hold the lock after launching, or just have missiles instantly lock on.

Fire-and-forget would make the user less vulnerable to return fire as it allows them to twist defensively and break LOS on launch, while instant lock-on would allow LRMs to deal more reliable damage.

TAG and NARC could be changed to allow the user to weight missile impacts more heavily towards a specific component, the way called shots work in BatteTech. This adds a greater degree of skill to TAG and NARC usage.

EDIT: Also, reducing IS LRMs' minimum range would also be very helpful.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 05 June 2018 - 04:29 AM.

[Khobai]

LRMs will always suck as long as terrain is indestructible. Thats the fundamental flaw in their design.

Because you get so much warning time that you can just dodge behind an invincible building/rock/tree and negate most of the missiles.

If we want useful LRMs we need destructible buildings/trees/rocks. Although it should be hard to destroy terrain with energy weapons/ballistics. Only explosive weapons like missiles should be effective at destroying terrain. That also creates a unique role for missiles as battlefield terraforming weapons.

mechwarrior 3 is like 20 years old and even that game had destroyable/deformable terrain. So theres really no excuse why we have indestructible terrain in MWO.

Edited by Khobai, 05 June 2018 - 05:21 AM.

[Asym]

Leave be.... Nothing is going to make any missile system "better" in this game... If they did, the entire game would change because an effective IDF weapons system would change open field gameplay to the point that the brawling community would quit.

Nothing can fix IDF in urban or vertically challenged areas, That's about half the maps so........... What would be the benefit?

[BourbonFaucet]

Vellron2005, on 04 June 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

In addition, make LRMs direct fire like MRMs when no lock (so straight, no high arc, so we can use them in HPG basement for example), and indirect when locked-on. That would make them useful in direct fire situations too, as well as in defending against lights (MRMs are great against lights right now)

I’ve always said that LRM’s need to be better direct fire weapons and poorer indirect fire weapons in order to be a balanced weapon that sees some higher tier use. Given the choice though, I would do this:

If a Mech launching LRM’s has line of sight to its target, then the LRM’s fly in a flat trajectory to the target, and receive a speed buff of 40%, as well as a small spread buff.

Then we just nerf indirect fire to balance out the above. I’d propose using the above system in reverse, base speed and worse spread without narc or tag.

[Nightbird]

2x LRM damage, why toss that wrench in your own suggestion?

[Kaeb Odellas]

Asym, on 05 June 2018 - 05:24 AM, said:

Leave be.... Nothing is going to make any missile system "better" in this game... If they did, the entire game would change because an effective IDF weapons system would change open field gameplay to the point that the brawling community would quit.

Nothing can fix IDF in urban or vertically challenged areas, That's about half the maps so........... What would be the benefit?

LRMs don't have to be a hyper-effective IDF weapon to be useful. If they were made stronger as direct-fire weapons but weaker as indirect, I'd be fine with that too.

It would make the "stand behind a rock and ask for locks" players even more useless, but I might be okay with that.

[Battlemaster56]

Techorse, on 05 June 2018 - 07:06 AM, said:

I’ve always said that LRM’s need to be better direct fire weapons and poorer indirect fire weapons in order to be a balanced weapon that sees some higher tier use. Given the choice though, I would do this:

If a Mech launching LRM’s has line of sight to its target, then the LRM’s fly in a flat trajectory to the target, and receive a speed buff of 40%, as well as a small spread buff.

Then we just nerf indirect fire to balance out the above. I’d propose using the above system in reverse, base speed and worse spread without narc or tag.

Then you stepping on ATM territory and they already have a foothold of the flat trajectory and high damage mid to close range, lrms will just be better ATM's with huge overwhelming missiles that ams won't handle.

Also what you thinking what a weapin system is exist in BT Streak LRM is what you describing.

[MechaBattler]

I think tighter spread and higher velocity for LOS lock would be enough to encourage more direct play.

[Brain Cancer]

LRMs honestly don't need to be worse at indirect fire, they just need to be gradually tweaked better for direct fire options.

They need an unlocked fire option that doesn't explode into a roof, launching like slower MRMs (which is what an MRM is, an LRM with the guidance system removed to make them more compact). They should be rewarded more if they're firing directly, and indirect fire should be left as-is, without further improvement.

The carrot is the only thing that will really change the LRM in a positive direction at this point. It might be a carrot that tweaks how LRMs work (slower ROF, higher damage per missile), but it really, REALLY doesn't need things that reduce it's capacity at this point.

[Chados]

MechaBattler, on 05 June 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:

I think tighter spread and higher velocity for LOS lock would be enough to encourage more direct play.

Artemis USED to do this.

Brain Cancer is right on. I’d like to see LRMs with an Artemis sight lock fly like MRMs or unlocked LRMs work like MRMs. Straight to target. But then we would not need MRMs, you see. Best just to let them be as they are now.

Edited by Chados, 05 June 2018 - 04:07 PM.

[LordNothing]

i would like to see more living legend style lerms. though i have given lock quality some thought. here are the problems i see with pgi's missile system:

lock takes to damn long, hard to win a head on fight with direct fire mech
narc and tag are highly marginalized
no distinction between direct and indirect fire
artemis heavily marginalized
free c3 requires lerms be nerfed heavily to avoid being super weapon
ecm heavily marginalized
no passive radar
no way to apply skill to get better performance (like tag steering)

in short pgi marginalizes everything for the sake of making the lerms very noob friendly (theres a special credits on the subject of starting weapons, not sure which video, and i think lerms slot well into that category). it results in lerms being very easy to use but very hard to do well with. i want to see lrms on equal footing with other weapons and not be the running joke of the game. i want to curse the sky again for producing so much rain and not brush the minute sprinkling away like an irate scottsman showing mild discomfort.

[S O L A I S]

The6thMessenger, on 04 June 2018 - 08:09 PM, said:

The point of these changes is to reflect the supposedly penalty for indirect-fires, versus direct-fires, while also allowing missiles to be a bit more reliable.

Missile-Lock is not entirely needed, but it makes locks a lot more reliable and therefore rewarding. Because it's only possible with LOS or with NARC or TAG, it allows it to be more powerful. And because of that, successful indirect-firing needs NARC and TAG, while non-missile-lock indirect-fires would just be effective only on passive targets or for simply fire suppression.

No, SSRMs still need missile-lock to fire. Artemis, would still be relevant with faster lock time and smaller missile spread.

This entire system makes use of the missile-lock system to make direct-fires and narcs/tags more rewarding, while being less complicated and easier to use for noobs -- they just need extra hoops to be successful at higher-skill environment, else indirect-firing would still be useful on noobs-vs-noobs.

Lastly the damage tweak, is there to make the LRMs a bit more punchier and less spammable, because it being a suppression-centric weapon is precisely why it's a terrible weapon. If you want suppression, chainfire, even if it makes the weapon less potent -- better than being impotent by default.

So they already did a minor tweak and people have gone full ham running missiles.

The biggest issue besides balancing to new and inexperienced players is the population. I mostly play CW and people, and even those grouped up, and a lot of them will run lurms everywhere. They will do it all the time and in every situation. It must work for them stomping pugs but they seem to get pretty angry when 12-0'd the first round.

Because the population refuses to consider team composition and map conditions, before lurms are made decent there needs to be an absolute hard cap on how many can be on a team. Maximum four and treat it like a separate class along with weights. Matchmaker should also show queue times for the class as well similar to the weight classes.

Until there is some sort of strict control you can't make them any better as new players would be rekt.

PGI should have done this a long time ago so that lurms could actually be decent and comparable to other choices.

[Brain Cancer]

S O L A I S, on 05 June 2018 - 07:57 PM, said:

So they already did a minor tweak and people have gone full ham running missiles.

They already were. Lurmtaters are eternal.

Quote

The biggest issue besides balancing to new and inexperienced players is the population. I mostly play CW and people, and even those grouped up, and a lot of them will run lurms everywhere. They will do it all the time and in every situation. It must work for them stomping pugs but they seem to get pretty angry when 12-0'd the first round.

No, they're just pretty much universal "I'M HELPING" types who end up with PUGs winning in spite of them, not because of them. The concept that spreading damage is inherently inferior to focused damage is as incomprehensible to them firing LRMs as it is whenever someone attempts to get them to focus fire.

Quote

Because the population refuses to consider team composition and map conditions, before lurms are made decent there needs to be an absolute hard cap on how many can be on a team. Maximum four and treat it like a separate class along with weights. Matchmaker should also show queue times for the class as well similar to the weight classes.

Until there is some sort of strict control you can't make them any better as new players would be rekt.

Great, so I assume we'd get a hard limit on AMS, too? Because you can't balance one against the other otherwise. I mean, how fair is it to limit someone to, say, 80 LRM tubes on the team when the other side gets two triple-AMS Novas and random Atlas-K's and such sprouting little canisters like some kind of forest of flak? Oh, and hard limits on any weapon that becomes too common?

I'm gonna love the limit they put on medium lasers. Won't that be fun?

Quote

PGI should have done this a long time ago so that lurms could actually be decent and comparable to other choices.

Once upon a time, PGI was so concerned about LRMs they put AMS hardpoints on pretty much everything, even chassis that would have no reason given the time they were produced to have one (or perhaps two).

Then they proceeded to make LRMs so bad nobody bothered equipping AMS. Laughs were had. Now, if they were actually good enough that people looked at you like a crazy person for not investing 1.5 tons+ in saving yourself from the dreaded lurm bombardment, maybe all those hardpoints would make sense. But they aren't, and they don't.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 05 June 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

2x LRM damage, why toss that wrench in your own suggestion?

Sorry about that, i meant it to go with a +50% CD.