25 replies to this topic

[Novakaine]

Sorry 6th I just can't agree with any of your proposals.
PGI basic premise for lrms are all wrong to begin with.
As Khobai has brilliantly pointed out.
Not that any of this matters because certain a certain party.
Is totally tone deaf.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 07:09 AM, said:

Sorry, but not sorry to disappoint. You're not getting rid of me that easily..

Oh, I'm not the one getting rid of you.

You did. We're simply waiting for you to commit.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 07:09 AM, said:

I'm not lying. I never lie. Shame on you for accusing me of such things.

I remember you saying that they are just fine so that PGI wouldn't nerf your dearly beloved. So yeah, you're not really interested in debating.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 07:09 AM, said:

I guess we can, since talking sense into you is like talking to a brick wall.. might as well skip your posts..

The real problem here is that I'm talking to children. I prefer actual discussions, not pokes about How i'm not a main LRM player, how we should just "agree to disagree".

Novakaine, on 19 October 2018 - 02:31 PM, said:

Sorry 6th I just can't agree with any of your proposals.
PGI basic premise for lrms are all wrong to begin with.
As Khobai has brilliantly pointed out.
Not that any of this matters because certain a certain party.
Is totally tone deaf.

I know. I just wanted to start a discussion why the basic premise is wrong to begin with.

Dogstar, on 19 October 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

Sorry 6th but every time I see you make one of these technical opinion posts presented as facts I can't help but think how wrong you are, maybe it's time to change your position or give them up?

I'm not presenting them as facts, I am presenting them as a starting point of a discussion.

You disagree with them? Present your case, prove them wrong. Just that simple.

Spheroid, on 19 October 2018 - 10:01 AM, said:

The problem is inequity of volley size between techbases.

You know, we've been over this, it's not about techbases. I am not trying to discuss the balance between FP or techbases, I am trying to start a discussion about the issue which is LRM's role -- basically IDF with DPS.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

Like every other LRM "idea" you have had, this one is terrible as well.

Tell us why.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

I would debate counter points but I do not think you would actually listen.

I'd listen. The problem is that, the ones that actually goes my way is either just "You don't play LRMs often enough", (Looking at you Vellron), and expect us to treat them with respect.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

As with all your concepts this one attempts to make LRMs into some kind of direct fire weapon.

If you really read my suggestion and premise, you'll know that this isn't a suggestion in making them Direct-Fire, it's about making them alpha-centric than DPS centric.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

This time around you are also focusing in on how "spammy" LRMs are, attempting to make them less "spammy".

Never mind almost EVERY other weapon in the game can be or is also "spammy".

Why would I bat an eye on them? They aren't IDF, they aren't problematic.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

Almost every other weapon in the game is usually boated to make them actually effective, or more effective. LRMs are no different.

Yes, but unlike every other weapon in the game that you boat to be ineffective, the LRMs have problematic designs. The suggestion I gave, such as removing the HG, actually encourages boating. It just changes the behavior so that they are more tactical in nature, than ones people spam for effect.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

Every idea I have seen from you is not balanced and attempts to shift LRMs into even worse versions and iterations than they are already.

I'm not saying that my numbers are good, rather the idea is about the spirit of them. Bottom line is that make LRMs Alpha-centric than DPS-centric that PGI claims that they are.

As to whether they may be worse or not, well I'd prefer to see them in action first.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

You say the weapon system is weak and UP, and all your trying to do is "fix" them for everyone so they are not UP. If it is UP why change the "spammy" aspect?

If you really read the OP, you'd know.

But since we're here, the point of it is to be less of a crutch. LRMs being DPS-centric weapon is balanced by inconsistent DPS, which can be maximized by good teams, but minimized by terrible players. This feast-famine, lying on extremes, is what I would argue the problem.

By giving them alpha damage, as in firing an LRM60A from an awesome all at once yields 102 alpha damage when it connects, but with about 13 seconds of CD between volley time, not only it caters to the careful that increases skill and opens the LRMs up to more buffs by being balanced on the higher level of play than just low levels of play. It also has a less PTSD-y effect on the low levels because LRMs aren't chain-fired anymore.

Siegegun, on 19 October 2018 - 06:20 AM, said:

Does spamming them somehow make them a worse weapon system? Because as I said above, most people are boating and spamming other weapon systems as well. If the weapon system is weak why are you always trying to change it into something weaker?

No, in fact Spamming them is why they actually work despite poor weapon design -- it's a crutch. And the fact that coordinated team can use them with great effect, and the other hand uncoordinated solo players in qp and/or properly positioned players are countering them is an issue. Hell having so much hard-counters for them is also the symptom. Them being a DPS weapon, the priority is to just get as much LRMs as you can with little thought.

An LRM60 would be dumping 100 damage over a single volley, I hardly say that's weak.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2018 - 03:07 PM.

[Khobai]

Spheroid, on 18 October 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

The problem is inequity of volley size between techbases.

no thats not the problem at all. Because CLRMs are terrible too. making CLRMs even worse like youre suggesting doesnt fix the problem; it just makes CLRMs every bit as bad as ISLRMs.

like I said before, instead of making bad weapons worse, PGI should focus on making them better. And just buff the ISLRMs more than the CLRMs since they do weigh twice as much.

since the main argument against buffing LRMs is that indirect fire would become too strong, the most logical way to go about buffing LRMs is to nerf indirect fire to counteract said buffs. The ideal result being that direct fire LRMs would get buffed while indirect LRMs would remain about the same as they are now. The tracking/spread of indirect LRMs should be massively nerfed unless TAG or NARC is being used.

the other problems with LRMs is that theyre a little too spammy, lack armor penetration, and arnt effective at long range. Increasing the cooldown on LRMs by 20%-25% and also increasing the damage per missile by the same percentage would help cut down on the spammability of LRMs while simultaneously making them better at armor penetration. and lastly the lack of long range on LRMs can be addressed by giving them a gradual acceleration upto a higher max velocity (start at 160m/s and gradually accelerate upto 240m/s). LRMs should be effective out to at least 700m-800m instead of the 500m-600m effectiveness they have now.

And terrain not being destructible is another huge problem thats unique to LRMs because of their slow travel time and ability to duck into cover before LRMs each you. PGI should at least make all the buildings destructible if not all upright terrain pieces.

PGI has made it abundantly clear they dont want to put the effort into fixing all or even some of those issues though. Its probably best if they just leave LRMs alone and focus on the things they CAN fix. Like walking back the heat dissipation buffs, at least on the clan side.

Edited by Khobai, 19 October 2018 - 03:15 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 19 October 2018 - 02:56 PM, said:

the other problems with LRMs is that theyre a little too spammy, lack armor penetration, and arnt effective at long range. Increasing the cooldown on LRMs by 20%-25% and also increasing the damage per missile by the same percentage would help cut down on the spammability of LRMs while simultaneously making them better at armor penetration. and lastly the lack of long range on LRMs can be addressed by giving them a gradual acceleration upto a higher max velocity (start at 160m/s and gradually accelerate upto 240m/s).

Armor-penetration? As in they damage internal structure? or just shaving off armor? Because i don't want ammo-explosions.

I honestly would prefer the projectile-acceleration on ATMs, on account of their damage-difference with range. That being said, why are you suggesting that on LRMs though? I mean 240m/s means they are already good at long-range, do you assume that they'll be also good at mid-range too. We'll i wanted to solve that with them having less DPS than ATMs.

As with just 20 - 25% increase in CD, without increase in Damage -- wouldn't that be just a nerf? I mean there's little trade-off, so if they speed up from 160 to 240 m/s, on the ranges of 400 and 600m, that's just up to 195 to 213 m/s, not to mention that they actually start slow that means there's still plenty of time to get to 400 and 600 meters. The only pro i see with this is that AMS is easier to defeat at longer range.

But all your suggestion does is make LRMs weaker and prod them to use at longer ranges.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2018 - 03:20 PM.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 18 October 2018 - 09:15 PM, said:

tl;dr

- LRMs are DPS weapons balanced by inconsistent DPS due to hardcounter is the LRM's problem. Good teams and players, and/or bad-targets can maximize the DPS anyways.



You know, LRMs is always a hot topic. I mean, it seems to be a skill-less weapon, yet low-skill people play it rather terribly as expected, but given to a coordinated team, it's terrible in a good way, hell people (as El Bandito claims) are being driven away from FP because of it, and lets face it -- it's not fun fighting as uncoordinated PUG versus coordinated pros, and what is more demeaning is fighting with little chance due to IDF, and being peppered to death by "noob weapons".

I want you to read above, look at how the LRMs are supposed to be meant.

- LRMs are low-cost DPS weapon
- As Drawbacks, LRMs have inconsistent DPS due to:
- > Weapon Spread
- > Hard Counters

I just want to point out that, LRMs being IDF, is it really being a DPS weapon go together? Really? We're looking at a type of combat that can become one-sided with another just hurling safely from cover. The spammability of LRMs because of that, they hardly lose anything from behind cover with good spotters -- at least ECM now only affects IDF so it's something.

People maximize DPS to minimize TTK, and the name of the game with LRMs is just to maximize spamming LRMs.

Now look at those drawbacks -- the Hard-counters which makes it easy to nullify the LRM user effectiveness, similarly good teams can circumvent these hard-counters with coordination -- the result of which is that they usually tip on the extremes of effective-ineffective, feast of famine. Good teams maximize it's DPS when it's meant to be inconsistent as being balanced, and that is why FP and coordinated teams are powerful with them.

The weapon spread however -- is that really much of a factor? It spreads regardless, so conventional knowledge is to just pepper as much LRMs as you can, so really there's little drawback from it if you know how to kit your builds well. Hell, numbers defeat AMS, which makes them ATM's bane.

My main problem is how LRMs are kitted as both DPS and IDF weapon, because that means all you need to do with LRMs is to keep them pouring indiscriminately, thoughtlessly they can yield results because of the homing system with ill-equipped targets, now give them to a team that can use them -- use the full DPS of the LRMs as the result of circumventing the counters, now it can be utterly one-sided, like FP.

What i am saying is that, the ability of LRMs to put out respectable DPS is it's crutch, it's barrier. It might not be PPFLD, but when they are putting out LRMs thoughtlessly, it can have enough DPS to compensate with bad play with bad targets, but it will have so much DPS with good play.

So what do i think LRMs should be? It shouldn't be a DPS weapon for one -- the Gauss Rifle isn't a DPS weapon, so are lasers, this is because they are alpha weapons instead, they work because it's about putting careful damage to targets. What if we treat LRMs like that?




This means that, it might not have economical DPS, but it has economical alpha. The point of this tweak is that it can be done with XML changes, it makes each launch of LRMs basically like +70% of the volley power, but they can be done at a lesser frequency which means people have to concentrate with getting the best angle than just simply plowing when you can.

The increased damage/volley would mean that single volleys would be much more powerful in obliterating a target at a single blow, but the increased CD means volleys can be more vulnerable between shots. The reduced spammability relegates the LRMs further as support artillery, that building boats are more risky because of it and would be more effective with more direct-fire weapons.

three times the cooldown? so the plan is to remove LRM use by enforcing boredom? that's like 13 seconds cooldown plus a lock aquisition of about 1.5 seconds....

To put this into some perspective an average speed light mech running at 130 kph can traverse over half a kilometer during the cooldown of the proposed LRM20 cooldown. So an Arctic Cheetah can start at around 600m away and succeed in charging down an LRM boat that has just fired without the LRM boat even having the ability to fire LRMs on the charging light mech!

Gratz! your LRMs are useless garbage.

[The6thMessenger]

Lykaon, on 19 October 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

three times the cooldown? so the plan is to remove LRM use by enforcing boredom? that's like 13 seconds cooldown plus a lock aquisition of about 1.5 seconds....

Ball park numbers, I reduced it to 2x. Also that's just the spirit of the suggestion, bottom line is that it's an alpha-centric build.

Lykaon, on 19 October 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

To put this into some perspective an average speed light mech running at 130 kph can traverse over half a kilometer during the cooldown of the proposed LRM20 cooldown. So an Arctic Cheetah can start at around 600m away and succeed in charging down an LRM boat that has just fired without the LRM boat even having the ability to fire LRMs on the charging light mech!

Is it really better when you can fire 3 times? I mean with LRM60, you'd dump 102 damage all at once because no more GH. If you want to suppress, again just chain-fire, space your shots if you don't want to get bored.

There's also an issue there, as in why don't you have good back up weapons? Why aren't your team dealing with said Light? Are you lurming on your own? Well there's your problem!

I would argue that such vulnerability is quite exactly the point of this suggestion. It's supposed to be an alpha-centric weapon now, it's about dumping a powerful volley, not spamming them.

Find a good angle to lurm, shoot, then relocate. 13.8 -- now actually 9.2 CD.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2018 - 03:33 PM.