1
If you look at LRMs in the tabletop game and compare them to where they stand in MWO they're vastly under powered for the role they are supposed to fill. The reason that in tabletop almost every heavy or assault that can carry LRMs does is because they're freaking scary, and that's just it. They're SUPPOSED to be scary, not some namby pamby afterthought weapon system. They're a primary offensive weapon for a REASON. Their max range should be about 1700m, their minimum range (for IS of course) should about 500m, their flight time should be a lot shorter than it is right now, and they should not lose lock in mid flight the way they do now when their launcher loses lock. If they were the weapons they are supposed to be there'd be an awful lot more salt about them than there already is and almost everyone would pack at least a few tubes just because it sucks to be on the receiving end of them without the ability to reply in kind.
I know that this isn't the tabletop but LRMs have always been looked down on as an inferior weapon in MWO. Most of that is because it's a first person game and the first person mindset makes people get angry when their shiny toy gets murdered without having the chance to reply. I understand that. Indirect fire sucks when you're on the receiving end. However this is supposed to be a tactical battle simulator and indirect fire weapons have a huge place in warfare. They are primarily suppression weapons. Their purpose is to force people to hide in foxholes or behind buildings. In MWO they really aren't capable of doing the role they should be filling. They are supposed to be used to soften up enemy formations by forcing them to dig in to avoid destruction. Anyone who gets caught in the open without the situational awareness or tools to avoid them deserves every piece of steel rain they're going to get. If you look at them from a realistic standpoint I'd be willing to bet that any soldier out there (if they don't have to worry about any collateral damage) would happily call in a mortar or air strike on the enemy in preference to fighting them directly. THAT is the purpose of LRMs. They reduce the exposure of your troops to the enemy's fire. There's a ton of cover on every map (including polar highlands) that can be used to break locks or prevent them from being established in the first place. I've personally been able to get an Annihilator all the way around behind an enemy team hosting a camp out on Polar without being spotted so don't tell me that polar doesn't have cover.
As far as the changes to NARCs that were previewed in the podcast I think that NARCs are already a high risk, low return weapon outside of group play. Sure you may sometimes get a team with a lot of LRMs or ATMs but too often your team doesn't have enough launchers to make bringing a NARC useful. In organized teams they become a lot more viable but the rewards for using them are pathetically bad. The NARCer in that situation can be indirectly responsible for scrapping a large portion of the enemy team but their reward for doing their job, scouting the enemy team, marking vulnerable targets, and providing feedback on the effectiveness of their partners fire puts them at considerable risk but their match score does not even remotely reflect the skill required to play their role. Sure sometimes a NARCer will go in and just NARC everything as fast as possible but that's typically a huge waste because they get spotted and crushed with extreme prejudice. NARCs are already tricky enough to use well so doubling their cooldown may just make people stop equipping them.
edited to remove bizarre formatting things
Edited by charbdys, 07 August 2018 - 02:54 PM.
