605 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Chados, on 14 August 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

And tightening the lock cone to the point that staring is mandatory, while buffing ECM and removing Artemis lock time and tracking strength bonuses, will reinforce sitting in the back and not sharing armor, and relying exclusively on 800m-plus indirect fire. Which will increase the calls for nerfing indirect fire, and granting that ultimately will make LRMs unplayable at any level and by any pilot.

Agreed. Most of the changes are just PGI balancing circles and forgetting why things are the way they are today.

ECM radius was nerfed in the past for a reason. Why is PGI increasing it? We dont even want ECM to grant stealth in the first place (thats not what it does in battletech). Let alone going back to it granting stealth in a huge bubble like it used to.

And Artemis was also buffed in the past for a reason. Because it wasnt worth the tonnage/crit slots. Now PGI is going back to Artemis not being worth it anymore. At least do a give and take approach where you buff artemis as much as you nerf it (give it a missile crit chance bonus or something)

And NARC is barely worth using now. Why does it need a nerf? If youre gonna nerf the cooldown at least buff the range and velocity to improve the quality of life of using NARC. Make it so NARC cant fire off as fast but its easier to hit with it. Thats fair.

And nerfing lockon angle speaks for itself... that is completely unnecessary and not at all the problem with LRMs.

These are just bad changes all around.

It just comes off as PGI looking for a sloppy immediate solution rather than working towards finding the right solution...

Edited by Khobai, 14 August 2018 - 03:54 AM.

[Reno Blade]

While the discussion seem to have focused too much on LRM now, I feel the need to emphasize again on the proposed changes from Chris vs the effect wanted.

Effect for Streaks = to make it harder to use, seems to be met with smaller reticule
Effect for LRM = to make it harder to boat or indirect fire?
Effect for Narc = to make it harder for LRM/ATM to spam a target or multiple targets?

LRM boating and spam reduction can be achieved by increasing ghost heat and cooldown.
LRM indirect fire can be reduced by increasing spread without Artemis (which should only work with LOS, if there is no bug)
LRM spam on multiple Narced targets can be reduced by adding the damage cap again on narced targets (we had that before).
If LRM cd is increased too much (e.g. 7-8s) a slight dmg buff could give them back some of the dps lost.

All these changes would (in my opinion) make the missiles less spammable, more powerful and have higher importance of the Narcers skills.
At the same time, (because boating is punished more) smaller builds (below 40 lrms) and builds with "support LRMs" gain a little more use compared to the boats.


Please note: the lock on reticule reduction might be some good idea for Fire-and-forget missiles like the Streaks, but the LRMs (and ATMs) need to stare for 2-3 seconds to keep the lock.
This is much easier sitting in the back with your LRM80 boat than with a med/heavy using something below 40 tubes and running-and-gunning to survive.
Either LRMs switch to fire-and-forget, or the target of future changes need to punish boating and spamming more than the smaller builds.

[Jonathan8883]

Don't forget the massive tonnage crap IS mechs have to put up with. For Clan mechs, LRM40+ammo is 14 tons. A Hunchback IIC or Huntsman can mount that and another primary weapons system. For IS mechs, LRM40+ammo is 24 tons. A Catapult or Archer can mount that and a few lasers... for basically the same damage.

Maybe look at dropping IS LRM launcher weights by ~0.5 tons per 5 missiles?

[Horseman]

Chados, on 14 August 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

Imagine LRMs with the current velocity and arc, but that have Chris’s tiny stare-cone, no Artemis bonuses, and with heavy ECM all over the field.

That would be terrible, yes.

Quote

LRMs that can’t shoot indirect without a parasitic lock granted by the largesse of another player calling target spotted, or NARCing, or TAGging.

That's actually needed. Currently, nerfs motivated by indirect fire have led to the weapon being "OP" against headless chickens and almost laughable against anyone else (which promotes boating the weapon because otherwise it's barely of any use), while the weapon system itself railroads newbies into a false comfort zone of a passive, parasitic playstyle. You don't see that as a problem?

Jonathan8883, on 14 August 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Maybe look at dropping IS LRM launcher weights by ~0.5 tons per 5 missiles?

Modifying the tonnage of existing weapon systems invalidates stock loadouts and canon builds. It's a non-option.

Edited by Horseman, 14 August 2018 - 07:51 AM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

50 50, on 13 August 2018 - 05:56 PM, said:

Hi Chris.
This paragraph made me wonder if there was an alternative thought on progression for LRMs as it does seem a shame for any weapon in the game to become obsolete.

What I am curious about is what the impact might be if LRMs were a direct fire weapon. Perhaps as an effect upgrading to the Artemis.
The reason I ask is that the LRMs share the lock mechanic of Streaks (and ATMs) which affords the weapon that ability to home in on the target but when using Artemis it also lets you fire 'at the cross hairs'.
Given the extra tonnage and cost for upgrading to Artemis, would changing the missile trajectory to a direct path (and removing the lock on) when it is equipped give the weapon life in the higher levels and have that similar sort of skill progression as compared with your example of Streaks to SRMs?

I kinda like this line of thinking. Standard LRMs-arch up and over. ALRMs-flatter trajectory more like ATMs but almost need to have LoS. There's a progression for you. I think the lock on feature is fine for both. If it's wide open, ALRMs would be like streaks to long range. As ALRMs are a different weapon system on your mech, you can change the attributes independently right? You can change how well the missiles seek with the lock on, the spread, etc. I'd increase the spread and slow the speed down so the target can get into cover faster perhaps.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Jonathan8883, on 14 August 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Don't forget the massive tonnage crap IS mechs have to put up with. For Clan mechs, LRM40+ammo is 14 tons. A Hunchback IIC or Huntsman can mount that and another primary weapons system. For IS mechs, LRM40+ammo is 24 tons. A Catapult or Archer can mount that and a few lasers... for basically the same damage.

Maybe look at dropping IS LRM launcher weights by ~0.5 tons per 5 missiles?

I would rather Clan LRMs be hotter, have wider spread, and/or have more restrictive heat scale.

[Jonathan8883]

I have not seen anything suggested yet that helps bring back bracket builds, which are a big part of the source material. Many of the most common mechs carry an LRM rack or two that isn't useless (Atlas, Cyclops, Centurion, Dragon, Vindicator, Thunderbolt, Kintaro to name a few just from HBS-BT).

Horseman, on 14 August 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

That would be terrible, yes.
That's actually needed. Currently, nerfs motivated by indirect fire have led to the weapon being "OP" against headless chickens and almost laughable against anyone else (which promotes boating the weapon because otherwise it's barely of any use), while the weapon system itself railroads newbies into a false comfort zone of a passive, parasitic playstyle. You don't see that as a problem?
Modifying the tonnage of existing weapon systems invalidates stock loadouts and canon builds. It's a non-option.

It doesn't break any of the stock builds. It just leaves them slightly under their max tonnage. Armor, structure, and weapon values have already been changed. There's nothing especially sacred about weapon tonnage or crit requirements.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 14 August 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

I would rather Clan LRMs be hotter, have wider spread, and/or have more restrictive heat scale.

They are already inferior by dint of streaming, which impacts spread & the ability to hit at all (by allowing the target more movement), and lower rate of fire (due to the time spent on stream launching).

All this about altering LRM arcs sounds like you're just asking for ATMs, which are a semi-direct fire LRM with LRM range and a lower arc... but you don't want the bonus damage at short range.

[Horseman]

Jonathan8883, on 14 August 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

It just leaves them slightly under their max tonnage.

Tomato, tomahto.

Quote

There's nothing especially sacred about weapon tonnage or crit requirements.

That's where we disagree.

Edited by Horseman, 14 August 2018 - 09:56 AM.

[Daurock]

One option, not yet discussed, to "improve" direct fire LRMs, while not improving indirect fire might, strangely enough, not lie in the Weapons at all - You could go into the sensor tree, and significantly buff the skills that Add to the "targeted" duration when a mech leaves line of sight.

This would significantly improve the chance that a poking mech would get hit by LRMS after leaving line of sight on some maps. Additionally, since few, if any Non-LRM type mechs actually take those skills, it's unlikely that a LRM boat will be benefiting from friendly locks in that context. It would probably reduce the usefulness of radar deprivation to some extent, but it would really only change anything if the "Locker," and "LRMer" are the same person. (In which case, I'm OK with Rader Dep being less useful.) If anything, at the very least, it might help to ease the the loss of the Artemis lock, for direct-fire LRMs.


As a side-note: I kind of believe the "Lock on" perk currently applied by artemis may be better suited in the trees (Ideally baked into the "Target info gathering" perks), rather than the equipment, but that's probably a topic best left for another day

Edited by Daurock, 14 August 2018 - 12:35 PM.

[50 50]

LRMS - Direct fire with Artemis
I kind of like the idea of changing them to have a flat trajectory when Artemis is equipped.
The reason behind that idea is that support equipment such as TAG and NARC affect lock on speed and as secondary equipment take up some tonnage and space but also work nicely with team coordination.
Artemis has a few additional effects which also work with the other launchers, but it also allows the LRMs to be fired 'at the cross hairs' which gives them more of the direct fire approach.
Whether they should still use the lock on when Artemis is equipped might be a point to discuss as the trade off would be exchanging the homing function for tighter weapon spread.
It would be interesting to try this variation out.

Bit of a shame there isn't different firing options for the weapons really.

Edited by 50 50, 14 August 2018 - 02:52 PM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

50 50, on 14 August 2018 - 02:45 PM, said:

LRMS - Direct fire with Artemis

I said almost the same thing!

[50 50]

TheCaptainJZ, on 14 August 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

I said almost the same thing!

Yup.

[MechWarrior254947]

Kin3ticX, on 14 August 2018 - 12:10 AM, said:

Lastly, I am pretty sure I can get to tier 1 with a smurf account doing nothing but spamming LRMs in an Atlas. However, there is no way I could get to 99th percentile on the jarls stat farm list doing nothing but LRM spam, maybe its possible but I don't think I could do it.

It's easy. It was easy before recent lurm buffs and even easier now.
I'm 98% overall with 2 seasons being 99% on Jar's list playing almost exclusively LRM Maddog on this alt account. You can even consider me being aiming impaired cause I only play this account when I'm very drunk.
So you absolutely can stat farm with LRM in lower tiers (at least up to T3).

[justcallme A S H]

Russet, on 14 August 2018 - 03:42 PM, said:

It's easy. It was easy before recent lurm buffs and even easier now.
I'm 98% overall with 2 seasons being 99% on Jar's list playing almost exclusively LRM Maddog on this alt account. You can even consider me being aiming impaired cause I only play this account when I'm very drunk.
So you absolutely can stat farm with LRM in lower tiers (at least up to T3).

Yep. It's 100% possible.

Writhen did it one season without even trying really, just laughing manically, it was good entertainment from a watching-it-on-twitch point of view. It wasn't enjoyable gameplay though.

[Chados]

Horseman, on 14 August 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

That would be terrible, yes.
That's actually needed. Currently, nerfs motivated by indirect fire have led to the weapon being "OP" against headless chickens and almost laughable against anyone else (which promotes boating the weapon because otherwise it's barely of any use), while the weapon system itself railroads newbies into a false comfort zone of a passive, parasitic playstyle. You don't see that as a problem?.

Not as much as better players than me seem to. But my LRM playstyle is unusual, I run 30 tubes with credible secondaries that do at least a firepower rating of 20 on a 65 ton chassis, and I work from 300 meters out-I use indirect fire as a way to hit targets dropping out of LOS and I get my own locks. I use the LRMs in concert with my secondaries when I get a sight lock close in. At close range the tight lock cone and Artemis debuffs Chris is implementing will make that playstyle impossible, though.

[Toek]

50 50, on 14 August 2018 - 02:45 PM, said:

LRMS - Direct fire with Artemis

I would second this. In my oppinion you should reward players that play Lrms in an active way, closing distance to the enemy with the team an have more options close to midrange then. For example direct fire could ignore the minimum range too and has an flyangle similar to the mrms (maybe slightly different to make each weapontype still unique).


Boating Chassis. In my oppinion many problems you try to solve with numbers on weapons are due too some specific chassis. Especially if some type of weapon-chasssis combination enhance a negative play experience. For example the PIR-1. Boating 12 MGs on a mech when some mechclasses can't defend against (slow heavies/assaults) get people annoyed. Maybe you should get a negative crit multiplier on mgs when fireing more than 6 at a time (like ghostheat for energy weapons). That way you would leave mgs in smaller numbers still valuable (without nerfing them) and decrease the usefulness on extreme boating chassis.

Edited by Toek, 14 August 2018 - 10:05 PM.

[Ninjah]

Here's a nice idea: Make LRM efficiency distance based (distance from target). Not saying you should use these exact values, they are just an example.

Lock time at 1000m - 10 sec

Lock time at 750m - 8 sec

Lock time at 500m - 5 sec

Lock time at 300m - 4 sec

Narc should half those numbers instead of providing insta locks. That would make the LRM boats want to actively roam the map and get close. It would solve the issue with LRM boats not sharing armor by lurming from 800m. It would be very hard to acquire a lock at that distance and Narc would only help so much. Lights wouldn't be able to kill isolated lrm boats so easily now that they have a need to go with the rest of the team.

Edit. I'd like to see lrms spread more with distance. Huge spread at 1000m, normal spread at 400.

Edit Edit:  Narc on ECM mech should have half of the current duration. Do not touch Artemis, Global ECM and lock cone. Shave down lrm ammo per ton a bit.

Edit edit EDIT: Add a LRM hit indicator to the HUD - Red = miss, Green = hit, Yellow = partial hit. I know there is a paper doll but if shows damage from all weapons hitting the target and tricks newbs into thinking it's their damage. If they knew they were missing they would move to a better position. Nothing worse then watching a lurm boat fire blindly at targets in hard cover.

Edited by Ninjah, 14 August 2018 - 11:35 PM.

[UlricKessler]

So my thinking on the issue of the 94 laser vomit of death and how to solve it is a bit direct, but please hear me out.

Nerfing weapons is not necessary and counter productive. It's mass-punishment for all because a few are being joyless turds (try hards man...freakin' try hards) and exploiting game mechanics to 'win'. It's not exactly cheating, but it's not exactly 'playing' either. I've ran into this build twice in about 3 months so I don't see it often and honestly when I did encounter it I was absolutely confused as to what exactly had just happened. One moment my Archer had a fully armored, fully intact left torso and then a Marauder IIC just looked in my direction and that left torso exploded. Shortly followed by my center torso. I thought the guy was hacking to be honest. I realized later that it was this very build that did it.

However, I do not think the player of that Marauder IIC should not be able to do a 94 alpha build. If they're able to do it, then let them. Just make the price they pay for doing it, regardless of skill tree unlocks and the like, much more severe. A price they and they alone have to pay for it and not everyone else.

if the player wants to alpha strike that 94 damage with their lasers at me again, fine, let them one shot me in a light, medium or a lightly armored heavy. Let them blow off the let or right torso from an assault I'm in.

Because the moment that player does that alpha strike, their mech should explode. The power draw from the reactor would generate such a massive heat spike that it overloads the reactor and goes critical. So the player can do their 94 alpha. Once. However that player and that player alone pays the penalty for doing it.

There should be a warning notice in the mechbay loadout that this will happen should they alpha strike so that the player is aware of the penalty. So perhaps chain-firing or group firing would be in the player's best option. Leave the option open for the player to alpha with 94 damage, but less desirable to do so. If they want to have that one shot ability, then give them their one shot. It'll be the last one they do in that match.

This probably isn't exactly as simple to code in as perhaps a slight reduction in damage or an increase to torso twisting or all the other proposed solutions, but I do think it's one that would cause the least upset and would be a more lasting solution to this specific issue.

[justcallme A S H]

UlricKessler, on 14 August 2018 - 11:54 PM, said:

I thought the guy was hacking to be honest. I realized later that it was this very build that did it.

However, I do not think the player of that Marauder IIC should not be able to do a 94 alpha build.

No MaraderIIC can do a 94pt Alpha without triggering ghostheat... So not really sure that is accurate.

You can do 87pt at a max / 97% heat and it's utterly horrible because it has to use a STD295 and has no cooling to speak of.

[UlricKessler]

justcallme A S H, on 15 August 2018 - 04:26 AM, said:

No MaraderIIC can do a 94pt Alpha without triggering ghostheat... So not really sure that is accurate.

You can do 87pt at a max / 97% heat and it's utterly horrible because it has to use a STD295 and has no cooling to speak of.

I stand corrected then on the build, but my point still remains. Also he did shutdown right after blowing off my side torso, waited a few seconds while I kinda was trying to figure out what the hell had happened and at least managed to hit him with the mrms and srms I had left before he evaporated my CT. Thanks for the info though!