154 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

Speaking on a No Guts No Galaxy podcast today, Paul and Chris listed a number of changes they intend to make to LRMs in the August patch, so as to address player concerns about the weapon system.

None of the changes mentioned will address player concerns.

Since open beta, players generally dislike LRMs for two reasons, on the same principle: indirect fire at long range encourages low-effort play.

1. Players using LRMs en masse are encouraged to move well behind the team, reducing the number of 'Mechs that can present a front and share armor. Multiple LRM-boating 'Mechs can compound this problem.

2. Players targeted by LRMs, particularly players attempting to organize a push or maneuver away from cover, can be locked indefinitely by a single spotter, with few opportunities for return fire.

It's key that these effects occur disproportionately outside of group or unit play. Since solo queue consists of the wide majority of player activity, it's relevant to the game and most players. Yet, the focus of each nerf is on an element of play not seen regularly in solo queue, where problems exist, and not related to reasons for player dislike of LRMs.

Again: the focus of each nerf is on an element of play not seen regularly in solo queue, where problems exist, and not related to reasons for player dislike of LRMs.

Artemis nerf: Removing the tracking bonus and potentially the lock-on bonus affects direct locks and indirect locks equally. While it's the least problematic change with regard to indirect fire, because it's irrelevant, it simply reduces the value of Artemis. And that seems problematic in and of itself.

NARC nerf: Paul/Chris adduced footage of a NARC beacon being used to extreme effect in a Faction Warfare game. This is a near-total outlier. NARC is rarely seen at any level of play. What's more, NARC in practice is most effective as a team tool. Cooldown increase aside — what target-painter uses it on cooldown? — it reduces perceived value of NARC and reinforces the idea that an LRM 'Mech may as well hang in the back, firing without coordination.

TAG nerf: No details on mechanics changes, but this is fundamentally unwise. Reducing the value of TAG directly undercuts the incentive of a front-line, direct-fire, self-sufficient LRM player. It doesn't reinforce hanging in the back and perpetuating frustrating gameplay; it endorses it.

Lock zone nerf: Counterproductive in the most basic way, as it progressively punishes moving closer to a target.

ECM range buff: An ECM range boost makes LRMs less of a concern...for teams with ECM. As in the previous half-decade of this game, that balance between teams can swing wildly.

Low-effort, indirect fire is and always has been the problem with LRMs. Recent buffs to velocity and heat have cascaded a bit into more widespread usage. If PGI wants to maintain the absolute power of LRMs while shifting them to mechanics that make them less controversial, there is one mechanic to focus on: secondary locks/indirect fire. That means something like:

1. Nerfing lock time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

2. Nerfing tracking time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

3. Nerfing missile spread from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

4. Nerfing missile damage from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

Make LRM Guy work for his locks. Make him work for his damage. Your proposed changes, Paul and Chris, won't do that.

[Big Tin Man]

A big problem with LRM's is that most people don't know that there is a difference between a secondary lock and a primary lock as far as missile spread goes. If they could change the lock on visual from one shape/color to another to denote the difference between primary and secondary, that would help encourage lurm boats to move with the group.

Once the average pug can see and understand that primary and secondary locks differ, then we can buff/nerf primary and secondary locks to fine tune it.

[Damnedtroll]

Just why another LRM post ? Just why more salt about LRM ? Just why nerfing lurms ?

People are sticking on problems that doest exist... I have 3 Battlemech with lurms on 70 battlemech.... if it was that good i'm sure i would have found a way to have more than 3 lurmers.

Edited by Damnedtroll, 07 August 2018 - 03:37 PM.

[KoalaBrownie]

Maybe some players want a low-effort build. The OP honestly just sounds like one player thinking that LRM players should play the way HE wants them to by nerfing the one aspect of LRMs that differentiates them from most other weapons.

And no, I would not consider myself an LRM player at all since I've only got maybe 3 mechs out of 35 that have any LRMs, only one of which is a "Boat" style build.

Edited by KoalaBrownie, 07 August 2018 - 03:41 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Indirect fire doesn't just ruin the quality of play on the team using it to excess- it also makes the game less fun on the receiving end. A player who comes under fire but can't react quickly to see and retaliate against their attacker will generally dive for the nearest piece of hard cover and stay there until the rain stops. This gives them a chance to re-assess while not taking damage, and plan a more effective trade. However, the easier it is to maintain indirect locks, the more time that player will spend cowering under a rock... instead of taking cover only long enough to break the lock then re-emerge to retaliate. Keep them under cover long enough, and they won't be thinking about exposing to trade anymore- they'll be focused entirely on avoiding further indirect fire.

Active gameplay is healthy gameplay. Passivity, especially when it's being enforced by the game mechanics, breeds frustration and causes players to lose interest in the game.

[Mystere]

People involved in this game, developers and players alike, are just ***-backwards in their thought processes. People are planning/demanding nerfs to LRMs, or system designed to support them, instead of just telling everyone and their pet goldfish to bring AMS. Players continue to insist on brining only damage-based meta-whoring loadouts. <smh>

[Prototelis]

I don't like the way IDF works because it incentivizes sandbagging your teammates for big numbers.

[The6thMessenger]

So, they see that the problem is the low-effort play and parasitic behavior, and they decide to nerf the upgrades and equipment that precisely increases the effort and makes LRMboats more self sufficient?

Wut?

This guy is on point. If they want proper LRMs, they need to be self-sufficient weapons with IDF being simply an option.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 August 2018 - 04:09 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

No TAG nerf for August.

As said, this pass is focused on the ease of use and the force multipliers, but this does not mean we are against further changes. So feel free to discuss. As Paul has said in a previous podcast, only so far I'm allowed to push a month on certain things. So we aren't ruling out that we may see further changes to LRMs in the future.

[The6thMessenger]

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

No TAG nerf for August.

As said, this pass is focused on the ease of use and the force multipliers, but this does not mean we are against further changes. So feel free to discuss. As Paul has said in a previous podcast, only so far I'm allowed to push a month on certain things. So we aren't ruling out that we may see further changes to LRMs in the future.

Please try 2x Damage and missile HP for LRMs with adjusted ammo/ton, but 1.75x CD (slower-firing lrms), 240m/s base speed and remove the missile-velocity quirks.

This way, It's less spammy, people need to think about their volleys better. We gave something for the high-tier, while retaining the mechanics needed for the low-tiers.

As for being force-multipliers, we should ease on the multiplicative part and be an additive instead. That means, devalue IDF a bit, and put more value on DF. Try making LRMs fly straight when direct-fire and only at an angle when direct-fire, this way their travel time is shorter. Have instant-lock when direct-fire, but slower lock with indirect-fire. Don't need sustained missile-lock when direct-fire, just target lock from anyone from the team.

Or maybe, make it so that LRMs, on their own cannot direct fire and need Tag or Narc from a spotter to actually direct-fire. Now that way, we can buff the LRMs, we gave Tag and Narc necessities.

In short, to fix LRMs, requires a tweak in the mechanics because therein lies the problems, and messing around the stats won't solve it.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 August 2018 - 05:39 PM.

[El Bandito]

TAG needs buffs, rather than nerfs. Nerfing TAG = discouraging people to get their own locks. TAG should be invisible to the enemy in regular vision, and should only be seen in heat vision or night vision modes.

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

No TAG nerf for August.

As said, this pass is focused on the ease of use and the force multipliers, but this does not mean we are against further changes. So feel free to discuss. As Paul has said in a previous podcast, only so far I'm allowed to push a month on certain things. So we aren't ruling out that we may see further changes to LRMs in the future.

Wish you had better freedom on changing things related to balance.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 August 2018 - 04:53 PM.

[Alkabides]

I’ve been playing a lot of cyclops 10-q lately for fun. It’s different from what I usually play AND it’s condusive to sipping beers and ripping up armor. I always laugh at the yahoos that mew like sorry pathetic kittens about lrms when an UNBELIEVABLY strong deterrent exists: AMS. Yeah so you might not get that one extra erml or two, possibly ammo but it shuts down the lurm Fire HARD. Just because you are stupid and unwilling to trade a miniscule amount of tonnage for massive protection doesn’t make lrms game breaking, it just makes you easy prey and deserving of your lot in life: perma new game load screen. Much like when you got broken up with multiple times: it’s not lurms it’s your sorry good for nothing tail pipe. Adapt or die, your crying tears just feeds the beast beaches. Hahaha, I look forward to making you rage in match clowns.

[Nightbird]

Add TC requirements for target lock sharing, easy.

Same as in lore.

[100 Tonne]

Not wanting to derail this thread, but, Mystere suggested everyone bring AMS. How effective would this be? How many AMS' are needed to stop 1 dedicated missile boat?

[Eisenhorne]

KoalaBrownie, on 07 August 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

Maybe some players want a low-effort build.

And that should be rewarded.... why?

[HammerMaster]

Tag NEEDS to be rewarded as THE USER IS IN LINE OF SIGHT!
ARTEMIS needs to be rewarded THE USER IS IN LINE OF SIGHT
OUT OF LOS (secondary) locks DO NOT GET REWARDED!
HOW HARD IS THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?
NARC? well debatable.
Lock Zone NEVER NEEDED THE PREVIOUS NERF
ECM in its current application is an abortion/aberration and NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE WAY IT IS NOW (Null Signauture)
The recent velocity buff WAS NEEDED.
The proliferation does NOT MAKE THEM OP!
Its just another ebb in the ebb and flow.

Edited by HammerMaster, 07 August 2018 - 05:18 PM.

[El Bandito]

Big Grimm, on 07 August 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

Not wanting to derail this thread, but, Mystere suggested everyone bring AMS. How effective would this be? How many AMS' are needed to stop 1 dedicated missile boat?

2 AMS will significantly reduce a dedicated LRM boat's damage output, and that's only 1 ton worth of equipment combined. 3 AMS will render a dedicated LRM boat toothless, unless it pays big GH penalty and alphas all the big launchers at the same time, which will still drastically reduce its DPS.

So if everyone brings 1 AMS, and the other side has 3-4 dedicated LRM boats, you can easily push at them, taking minimal damage during the journey, even if they Narc all yer team. And AMS, when concentrated, can shoot down Narc beacons too. Just remember that AMS gives you borrowed time, so use it and push instead of hiding for 10 minutes.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 August 2018 - 05:49 PM.

[Mystere]

Chris Lowrey, on 07 August 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

No TAG nerf for August.

As said, this pass is focused on the ease of use and the force multipliers, but this does not mean we are against further changes. So feel free to discuss. As Paul has said in a previous podcast, only so far I'm allowed to push a month on certain things. So we aren't ruling out that we may see further changes to LRMs in the future.

First, instead of a nerf, TAG should be buffed, first and foremost by making it invisible in normal visual mode.

Second, instead of catering to the whiny masses, encourage people to bring the available countermeasures. I mean, why have them if no one is going to use them?

Finally, be very extremely careful about weakening the so-called "force multipliers". Their use is what encourages team play, and we need as much of the latter as we can get.

[Khobai]

They need to nerf indirect LRMs

and massively buff artemis, tag, and narc

That makes LRMs less parasitic while at the same time making them better at direct fire and encouraging the use of TAG/NARC for indirect fire

Also TAG/NARC users should be credited with like 50% of damage done by LRMs (or the equivalence in match score bonus) that hit the TAG/NARC target. So theres more incentive to use those equipments. Why 50%? Because the indirect LRM user couldnt hit the target in the first place if you didnt TAG/NARC it. So that seems fair to me.

If youre putting yourself at risk to TAG/NARC a target you should benefit from that. Right now the bonuses are pathetic and the LRM boat gets all the reward which makes no sense.

Big Grimm, on 07 August 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

Not wanting to derail this thread, but, Mystere suggested everyone bring AMS. How effective would this be? How many AMS' are needed to stop 1 dedicated missile boat?

if everyone brings AMS were right back to LRMs being useless again.

thats why rock paper scissors is a bad game. LRMs being countered by AMS is just not healthy. Especially when other weapons dont have counters.

AMS is part of the problem IMO. It just makes it that much more difficult to properly balance LRMs. And especially ATMs which get absolutely crushed by AMS. Because the existence of AMS means those weapons need to be stronger than normal to compensate for AMS, otherwise they end up being too weak to be competitive.

ECM is also similarly a problem. ECM never shouldve granted stealth. That was always a bad decision on PGI's part and one that shouldve been fixed by now. Instead of granting stealth, they should give ECM a third mode called ghost mode, that creates fake radar contacts and possibly even holographic copies of the mech using ghost mode.

Edited by Khobai, 07 August 2018 - 06:19 PM.

[Mech Ranger]

i dont know why so many people crying about lrm~

if u think it's too imba , then get ur own lrm mech and see how good u r~

u know what need be nerf? brainless ballstic~, all u need just click the button untill enemy down





so stop crying about lrm~

Edited by Mech Ranger, 07 August 2018 - 08:05 PM.