Jump to content

Ngng Response


4 replies to this topic

#1 charbdys

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 12 posts

Posted 07 August 2018 - 02:51 PM

I know this is going to be unpopular but I think the issue right now isn't that LRMs are over performing right now but that they've been under performing for so long that it's made people complacent. Honestly the LRMs in MWO are nowhere near as scary as they should be, and they really never have been.

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.


#2 T e c h 4 9

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 66 posts
  • LocationBehind you

Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:11 PM

I'm no TT expert (it's been a LONG time since I played TT), but IIRC, LRMs had a minimum range of 6 hexes, and a maximum range of 21 hexes, with each hex being approx. 100 feet (30m) across, so 600' min. range and 2100' max range (or 180m/630m respectively). They were LOS only, unless there was additional combat multipliers like Artemis IV, NARC, TAG or C3. LRMs did 1 point of damage per missile hit, and Artemis also only increased the number of missile hits, not the closer grouping of missiles onto a single component (as it is implemented in MWO), and NARC could not be combined with Artemis. I don't recall a "flight time" in TT, as there is in MWO, so you didn't lose a "lock" mid-flight, but you couldn't get a lock and fire those LRMs if you weren't LOS or had a spotter with TAG/C3 or a NARC beacon on the target mech.

So, I'd actually wager that LRMs are more powerful in MWO than in TT, counter to what you have posted. If I am mistaken, please post the errors in my post and cite where you have found that in a TT rulebook, TRO, or Compendium.

I have recently played some matches against organized teams that were using LRMs and NARCs that were pretty effective (and annoying), but I still didn't think they were overpowering. Unfortunately, our team was not EXPECTING LRMs/NARCs and were not equipped with a bunch of ECM/AMS mechs, so it played in the other teams' favor. We still managed to beat one of them, but the "better organized" team did manage to win. So, the only real gripe I can muster against LRMs is that I think they should be LOS only, unless the team is equipped with C3 (this means PGI would have to implement C3 computers in the game). Of course, Artemis, NARC and TAG would work as they do now.

#3 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,380 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:25 PM

How long have we been telling PGI to get rid of free C3 lock on?
It will put clan LRM in a place where they NEED their more powerful NARC.
IS will have to pay with C3 slots tons.

#4 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 August 2018 - 05:09 PM

In TT mechs have a 1/3 the armor of this game, so all weapons are scary.

Edit: Still remember my first game in my Founders Atlas. HEADSHOT!!!!!!!!
The whole head was the cockpit. Lived 30 seconds
Armour was less than we have now

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 11 August 2018 - 01:57 AM.


#5 Laser Kiwi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 254 posts

Posted 11 August 2018 - 04:13 AM

i'm no expert, though i played TT battletech for years, the ranges are all messed up in this game, but one thing i do know, my really good gunnery skill pilots could still use their IS lrms effectively inside the minimum range, time to get rid of the IS minimum and put it on par with the clan ones, a reduced damage scale.

As for LRMs themselves, heaps of salt about them being OP, but ultimately they aren't OP, they should just leave it alone and let people sort out their own minds about how to utilise them going forward





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users