25 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

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.

Quote

https://mwomercs.com...atch-notes/2104

LRM Design Notes: The core role of the LRM in the greater weapon lineup is to have a ranged DPS weapon option at an economic tonnage investment point with the core drawbacks coming in the form of inconsistent DPS due to weapon spread and a number of options available to the opposing player that blunt incoming damage (AMS) or counteract the locking mechanics that can often hard counter the weapon system.

Spoiler

After review of community suggestions and aligning it with our own internal data, we feel that the general proposal aligns with our overall goals for the weapon and agree that they could use a bit of a boost to their sustainability provided they can maintain solid weapon locks.

Where we will deviate in opinion from the commonly reference community proposal is in its assessment of the Clan factions version of the weapons. Despite the IS and the Clans being treated as separate factions, we want to keep design consistency when it comes to the core roles for the weapons that are shared between the factions. Having such a separation goes against the core role we want the weapon to occupy. While we understand where the feedback is coming from when it comes to certain clan performers, this is not consistent with the entirely of the clan lineup. As 'Mechs that are limited more on a tonnage basis due to weight class or locked equipment need to be accounted for just as much as those that can effectively utilize more heat sinks. So we have opted instead to shift the properties on the clan launchers to be more consistent with other clan missile systems such as SRM which come in at significantly less tonnage then their IS counterparts. The Clans will still benefit from improvements with overall sustainability of the weapon system to play into the weapon's core role, but that damage, much like their SRM counterparts, will be less focused overall to account for their significantly lighter tonnage launchers.

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?

Quote

LRMS:
- Velocity to 240 m/s (eliminate velocity quirks)
- Damage to 1.7x (120 ammo/ton)
- CD to 2x (fires slower)
- DPS is 15% less
- Remove GH (encourage launching all LRMs at once and prevent chainfiring)

These aren't exact values, they are just the spirit of my suggestion. Basically Alpha-centric, than DPS-centric LRMs. Don't get too hung up on how "bad" these numbers are.

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.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2018 - 03:14 PM.

[Spheroid]

No these are terrible ideas. You don't understand the problem. A 13 second cooldown!? That would play like garbage in QP.

The problem is there are too many missiles in the air. Why do you want to remove ghost heat. Ghost heat needs to be cranked up, way up. Clans got cooler missiles last patch, huge heat disipation buff this patch and tighter artemis spread.

I.S. struggles to bring LRM60, Clan is bringing LRM80+ and with greater speed and deeper bins. The launchers weigh half as much the only way to bring lurm rain parity is to limit salvo size by heat. Your foolish suggestion to ignore heat does nothing to address the core imbalance in faction play. Just as Clan can only fire two large lasers to the I.S.'s three the same asymmetry needs to be used to limit missiles as function of heat. The launchers are fricking half weight and you want to remove all heat penalties? If anything they need to be twice as punitive.

Also your upping of velocity and alpha ability just further nerfs AMS which I doubt was your intention. Since all missile projectiles have the same hitpoint value any counter buff of AMS would just throw the rest of the missile family into utter chaos. How are you then going enable ATM viability? Hyper velocity ATMs and NARCs, no thanks.

Edited by Spheroid, 18 October 2018 - 11:11 PM.

[Khobai]

I support LRMs firing slower and doing more damage per missile to make them less spammy and more effective at penetrating deeper into armor.

but x3 cooldown is just plain dumb. LRMs wouldnt even be useful as a suppression weapon with a 13 second cooldown, which is really their only use now; they punish people for walking out in the open.

right idea (sort of) but absolutely wrong implementation.

I feel just giving LRMs 20% longer cooldown and 20% more damage per missile (1.2 dmg/missile) would be sufficient to cut down on missile spam and make LRMs a little more effective at punching through armor.

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

The launchers are fricking half weight and you want to remove all heat penalties? If anything they need to be twice as punitive.

clan LRMs are pretty bad. im not sure they need to be punished more lmao. making already bad weapons even worse doesnt improve the game state any.

makes far more sense to buff the IS LRMs than make the bad clan LRMs even worse.

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

Also your upping of velocity and alpha ability just further nerfs AMS which I doubt was your intention

To be fair AMS is a bit ridiculous anyway. Because LRMs are bad. And bad weapons getting soft countered just makes them that much worse. AMS countering LRMs is really only justifiable if LRMs are stronger than your average weapon (which they arnt because theyre bad). Same goes for ECM countering LRMs... why is it necessary to add counters to weapons that are bad? its not.

Theres no soft counters to the better weapons like lasers, autocannons, or gauss. So why is it okay that LRMs get soft countered? It makes no sense... it just contributes to LRMs being way worse than they should be. I suppose if we had ways to counter lasers/autocannons/ppcs (i.e. reflective/reactive armor/blueshield), then having LRMs get countered by AMS would make more sense. But its really not fair that LRMs get singled out by having a counter and no other weapons do.

Edited by Khobai, 18 October 2018 - 11:32 PM.

[Spheroid]

@Khobai: If you agree with his proposal to increase velocity that also devalues the utility of radar deprevation not just AMS.

You seem to think that AMS should not even be in the game. I didn't advocate for them being buffed I merely pointed out that if they we to hold steady in effectiveness vs. lurms the unintended consequences would have ATMs no longer feeling like missile weapons. To preserve the shootdown rate you have to have them closer ballistic type velocities.

[Khobai]

Spheroid, on 18 October 2018 - 11:37 PM, said:

@Khobai: If you agree with his proposal to increase velocity that also devalues the utility of radar deprevation not just AMS.

LRM stands for "long range missile". Without a velocity increase they will never be effective at long range. Thats a simple irrefutable truth.

LRM velocity absolutely needs to be increased in order for LRMs to live upto their namesake.

However I believe LRMs should gradually accelerate upto their max speed. That way LRMs arnt made more effective at shorter ranges and are only made better at long range. For example, LRMs might start out traveling at 160m/s and gradually accelerate along a curve upto 240m/s.

Increasing velocity is the right idea. But the OP's implementation is bad and my implementation is better.

Spheroid, on 18 October 2018 - 11:37 PM, said:

You seem to think that AMS should not even be in the game.

I didnt say that at all.

I said its not fair that LRMs are singled out as the only weapon with a counter. While better weapons like lasers, autocannons, and PPCs dont have their counters in the game.

If bad weapons like LRMs have counters. Certainly good weapons should have counters as well. Otherwise how can you justify bad weapons having counters? Its ridiculous when you think about it.

Spheroid, on 18 October 2018 - 11:37 PM, said:

To preserve the shootdown rate you have to have them closer ballistic type velocities.

I see no reason to preserve the shootdown rate. LRMs are bad. AMS makes them worse. Why is that necessary? its not.

AMS is already way too effective for its tonnage against LRMs/ATMs. Im perfectly okay with AMS being weaker. Especially since other better weapons dont have counters.

Edited by Khobai, 18 October 2018 - 11:51 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Another one of these threads?

Oh well... here we go again...

I don't like your idea Sixth.. and here's why..

LRMs are first and foremost - a battlefield control method. They are meant to punish bad positioning of the enemy and reward good teamwork and positioning of the user.

If they were less spammy, but did more damage, you would significantly nerf that.

Also, you would have to nerf all the counters to make it worth a damn.

Keep in mind that LRMs become OP when used by coordinated teams of high-skill players. In those conditions, Flamers can be OP too.. or just about anything in this game. It's not just a symptom of LRMs. It's a symptom of map design, game design, and people being people.

Keep in mind that there already is a weapon meant for the purpose you're proposing - ATMs.

The problem of "missile spam" is no different than AC2 spam, or RAC spam, or MG spam. Most people would say LRMs are much less effective than any of those. And nobody sees those weapons as in need of reworks.

I think that if you increased the damage and cooldown, what would happen is:

1) ATMs would loose their purpose
2) People would rage over how quickly they die from people 800 meters away in deep cover.
3) People would engage in even more poking and cover-hugging because right now, they know they can run around and get hit with LRMs and it takes a long time to get seriously damaged, but if you increase the damage, it would be like "oh, you left cover, that will cost you a side torso" - just like getting gaussed or ERLL'd from people you can't see on the other side of the map.
4) The counters to LRMs would make them even more feast or famine.

Sixth, this is not the first time (probably won't be the last) that you've had ideas about LRMs, and it's always the same thing - you want to make them more damaging, more skill oriented, more like ATMs really.. Please.. it's not gonna happen. PGI made that clear.

Just accept this.

Please stop encouraging changes to LRMs, because every friggin time people get into these pointless never-ending discussions, PGI nerfs them, and I for one would like to keep having the little fun I have with them as is.

P.S.

I really don't understand why LRMs are such a huge problem for some people.. Not many people even use them, they are only ever brought to full power on a few maps, it takes really high skill and full-on optimization to make them deadly effective, and they are just as OP as literally ANY OTHER weapon in the game if used by a team of coordinated professionals. Most people don't even bring them to FP, and those that do still depend on their own skill but also their teammates. I've had people yell at me for bringing them to FP, and I've had people change their own dropdecks to accommodate LRM use.

When you're facing a 12-man of veterans in FP, it doesn't matter if they are using LRMs or Gauss, or Lasers of Flamers.. they will crush you regardless. If 12-mans suddenly started using flamers+machinegun combos, would you be calling for core mechanic changes to flamers and machineguns?

Come on.

Please stop..

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 October 2018 - 12:18 AM.

[kapusta11]

The problem with LRMs is that they are balanced around the fact that one mech can spot for multiple LRM boats. That's why LRMs can't be strong. Make it impossible to acquire a missile lock if someone is already shooting their LRMs at that mech. The only way to bypass this limitation should be:
- multiple players spotting the same mech (number of spotters = number of allowed missile locks)
- getting your own locks
- NARC beacon (+1 lock)
- ECM (-1 lock)
- C3 network (if PGI decides to implement it)
That way you can buff LRMs substantially (velocity, direct fire lock speed) without worrying that they will be too stong in spud queue.

Edited by kapusta11, 19 October 2018 - 12:37 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the Greatest problem for most ...other human Players not plays like Bots and a bad AI ...the most will easy gameplay with great Killcount and fun with nothing learn ...the most better hopes of a good playable MW5 with no Human Players thats worked in teams and coordinated...unwillingness to learn and adapt methods will easy solutions ..Gaming against Humans its a Learning process like all in the real social World ...not the right place for narcistic Wishes..play with Team or alone..best is most of this Whiners going back to fallout 4 or Singleplayergames or plays FPS who each Model has the same Single rifle in Variations ,and Hit Geometry .
imagine in Battlefield, everyone could equip their soldiers with all weapons at the same time including that he can use the main gun of a tank and the cannon of a helicopter, and declare his soldiers in size from small to twice as large ...MW is not like the FPS Games ..the BT Maingame was never balanced ...only the diceluck gave it a Balance,and here we have a mechlab with no restrictions.Forget each idea and Wishes to play MW/MWO like a FPS .

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 19 October 2018 - 12:48 AM.

[Vellron2005]

kapusta11, on 19 October 2018 - 12:37 AM, said:

The problem with LRMs is that they are balanced around the fact that one mech can spot for multiple LRM boats. That's why LRMs can't be strong. Make it impossible to acquire a missile lock if someone is already shooting their LRMs at that mech. The only way to bypass this limitation should be:
- multiple players spotting the same mech (number of spotters = number of allowed missile locks)
- getting your own locks
- NARC beacon (+1 lock)
- ECM (-1 lock)
- C3 network (if PGI decides to implement it)
That way you can buff LRMs substantially (velocity, direct fire lock speed) without worrying that they will be too stong in spud queue.

So.. again.. turn them into ATMs?

Seriously?

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 October 2018 - 11:40 PM, said:

Increasing velocity is the right idea. But the OP's implementation is bad and my implementation is better.

Lol. K.

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

No these are terrible ideas. You don't understand the problem. A 13 second cooldown!? That would play like garbage in QP.

Garbage on their own. But with 1.7 damage/missile, they should be good on their own as icing over direct-fire builds.

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

The problem is there are too many missiles in the air. Why do you want to remove ghost heat. Ghost heat needs to be cranked up, way up. Clans got cooler missiles last patch, huge heat disipation buff this patch and tighter artemis spread.

Because it's supposed to be something you fire all at once instead of chain-fired now. Prevent spammability.

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

Your foolish suggestion to ignore heat does nothing to address the core imbalance in faction play.

Well, yes. That seems to be tech-imbalance. My suggestion has nothing to do with it, it's supposed to address the feast-famine that LRMs that usually undertake.

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

Also your upping of velocity and alpha ability just further nerfs AMS which I doubt was your intention. Since all missile projectiles have the same hitpoint value any counter buff of AMS would just throw the rest of the missile family into utter chaos. How are you then going enable ATM viability? Hyper velocity ATMs and NARCs, no thanks.

You mean the AMS that everyone can bring at least one, don't even get me started with the iron-domes. Countered by bringing as much LRMs as they could of lets say up to 60 LRMs which is effectively 32-tons without ammo, and firing all of them at once in a single volley countering a 1.5 ton investment?

ATMs have their own problem, such as low-missile-count should have been addressed by increased missile health. Simmilarly, the NARCs, SSRMs, and SRMs would have similar performance against AMS.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Another one of these threads?

Funny, i thought you left. Guess i was wrong.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Oh well... here we go again...

I don't like your idea Sixth.. and here's why..

You're not among the people with opinion i value.

Besides, couldn't we just agree to disagree?

After all, you're just lying so that PGI wouldn't further spite LRM users by nerfing your dearly-beloved LRMs.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

LRMs are first and foremost - a battlefield control method. They are meant to punish bad positioning of the enemy and reward good teamwork and positioning of the user.

If they were less spammy, but did more damage, you would significantly nerf that.

Also, you would have to nerf all the counters to make it worth a damn.

Which you could do so with the suggestion adequately. You want suppress? Chain-fire to keep their heads down, you want to do actual damage? launch them all at once -- that simple.

That being said, I understand that there is the reduction of DPS, but what is gained is better fit within the power-curve of the game.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Keep in mind that LRMs become OP when used by coordinated teams of high-skill players. In those conditions, Flamers can be OP too.. or just about anything in this game. It's not just a symptom of LRMs. It's a symptom of map design, game design, and people being people.

LRMs being op when used by coordinated teams of high-skill players isn't really selling your point. I mean sure it's mostly about Teamwork = OP, but if anything there's flaw to the design if it's OP on the higher end, but UP on the lower end. Where is the middle?

I wanted to address that, I wanted to make it so that it's more consistent.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Keep in mind that there already is a weapon meant for the purpose you're proposing - ATMs.

The ATMs they use at between 150m to 270m to melt enemies? What i am proposing is vastly different to what you understand. What i am proposing is providing the LRMs an Alpha role instead of DPS one, that raises the skill-ceiling.

Not to mention that you're still looking at ATMs having better DPS even at their middle-range damage.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

The problem of "missile spam" is no different than AC2 spam, or RAC spam, or MG spam. Most people would say LRMs are much less effective than any of those. And nobody sees those weapons as in need of reworks.

We're looking at IDF and homing weapon, you're missing a massive aspect of LRMs. When you spam MG, AC2, or RACs, there's the stare-factor of the LOS, where is that with IDF? Unreliable locks?

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

I think that if you increased the damage and cooldown, what would happen is:

1) ATMs would loose their purpose

You mean the ATMs that can be used on tunnels, does 3 damage/ missile close-range? The ATM12 at 7 tons deals 12/24/36 damage every 5 seconds, with 2.4/4.8/7.2 DPS, in contrast the CLRM20A would have done 34 damage every 13.8 seconds with 2.4638 DPS.

If their purpose as the alpha-damage was lost, sure. But they still have their own uses, such as doing a lot more DPS, which isn't out-of-place when we're looking at the ATMs being the more DF-tuned homing-missiles.

But I'll be honest, the ATMs are poorly implemented as well.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

2) People would rage over how quickly they die from people 800 meters away in deep cover.

Eh. 800 meters already and they're being locked on and had a clear shot? That's basically 3.3333s, hell that's basically 190m/s velocity and 633.33m with our current LRMs.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

3) People would engage in even more poking and cover-hugging because right now, they know they can run around and get hit with LRMs and it takes a long time to get seriously damaged, but if you increase the damage, it would be like "oh, you left cover, that will cost you a side torso" - just like getting gaussed or ERLL'd from people you can't see on the other side of the map.

Meanwhile that is exactly their problem, the CD is 3x as it were before, but damage is only at 1.7 times. The design meant to be defeated by aggression, and if they ain't doing that, it's not my fault.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

4) The counters to LRMs would make them even more feast or famine.

How so? No explanation? I mean i could see them more and more effective with alpha than sustain chain-fire, with them being more effective with inputted skill, I'm sure they'd be more feast than famine. Good players are already acquainted with good positioning, all they need to do is land the volleys properly and unexpectedly like a well-placed shell, and it should be fine.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Sixth, this is not the first time (probably won't be the last) that you've had ideas about LRMs, and it's always the same thing - you want to make them more damaging, more skill oriented, more like ATMs really.. Please.. it's not gonna happen. PGI made that clear.

Just accept this.

No.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Please stop encouraging changes to LRMs, because every friggin time people get into these pointless never-ending discussions, PGI nerfs them, and I for one would like to keep having the little fun I have with them as is.

AND THERE IT IS!

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

I really don't understand why LRMs are such a huge problem for some people..

Not surprising, if you don't even understand why people don't like you.

Then again, you might actually know, but don't care. But if you don't care, why should i?

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Not many people even use them, they are only ever brought to full power on a few maps, it takes really high skill and full-on optimization to make them deadly effective, and they are just as OP as literally ANY OTHER weapon in the game if used by a team of coordinated professionals.

That's not really an excuse to have them terribly made. PGI wanted us to not think of LRMs as waste of tonnage, but they don't do any actual hard work to implement a better system that it needs.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Most people don't even bring them to FP, and those that do still depend on their own skill but also their teammates. I've had people yell at me for bringing them to FP, and I've had people change their own dropdecks to accommodate LRM use.

When you're facing a 12-man of veterans in FP, it doesn't matter if they are using LRMs or Gauss, or Lasers of Flamers.. they will crush you regardless. If 12-mans suddenly started using flamers+machinegun combos, would you be calling for core mechanic changes to flamers and machineguns?

I really don't care. No really, I don't. Not that I don't care about LRMs, or FP, but where you're going with this.

I understand that there's OPness in Teamwork, and that's just fair, but there's issue with the LRMs that i want to see fixed.

Vellron2005, on 19 October 2018 - 12:08 AM, said:

Come on.

Please stop..

Again, no.

And I will keep doing this -- not even to spite you, but because i actually care enough to see LRMs better off, not just to preserve my own comfort zone.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 October 2018 - 02:35 AM.

[Anastasius Foht]

Lrms is fine, they overnerfed all missiles prevoiusly, but after they realise its a mistake and bring back "brawl lerm" style playability with LOS faster lock in last patch.

[Siegegun]

Like every other LRM "idea" you have had, this one is terrible as well. I would debate counter points but I do not think you would actually listen. As with all your concepts this one attempts to make LRMs into some kind of direct fire weapon. 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". Almost every other weapon in the game is usually boated to make them actually effective, or more effective. LRMs are no different.

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. 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? 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?

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2018 - 01:57 AM, said:

Funny, i thought you left. Guess i was wrong.

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

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2018 - 01:57 AM, said:

After all, you're just lying so that PGI wouldn't further spite LRM users by nerfing your dearly-beloved LRMs.

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

I do want PGI to stay away from nerfing LRMs that's true, and am especially against changing their core mechanics in big ways so as to fit them into someone's personal play style..

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2018 - 01:57 AM, said:

You're not among the people with opinion i value.

The feeling is extremely mutual.

The6thMessenger, on 19 October 2018 - 01:57 AM, said:

Besides, couldn't we just agree to disagree?

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

I know you're not gonna stop doing these ridiculous post and stirring the pot, and I also know PGI doesn't care about them much either.. so I guess you can fart in the wind as much as you like.. it's just gonna befoul the air for a moment and then go away..

P.S.

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

Like every other LRM "idea" you have had, this one is terrible as well. I would debate counter points but I do not think you would actually listen.

See, this guy knows what's up..

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 October 2018 - 07:11 AM.

[Nightbird]

lol, thanks for the laughs

[Dogstar]

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?

Edited by Dogstar, 19 October 2018 - 09:44 AM.

[Spheroid]

The problem is inequity of volley size between techbases. Something that has gotten worse the last two patches. Also on maps like Alpine numerous direct line of sight options exist for spotting so ECM is useless.

Hide in the spawn get *****. Climb candy mountain and they spawn camp anyone they manage to kill. There is no parity. Any counter would be too specialized in the likely chance that you guess the wrong enemy loadout.

[Khobai]

kapusta11, on 19 October 2018 - 12:37 AM, said:

The problem with LRMs is that they are balanced around the fact that one mech can spot for multiple LRM boats. That's why LRMs can't be strong. Make it impossible to acquire a missile lock if someone is already shooting their LRMs at that mech. The only way to bypass this limitation should be:

But even then LRMs arnt very good if the other team has ECM/AMS.

You literally need a best case scenario for LRMs to be good; where your team has a spotter with NARC and the other team doesnt have ECM/AMS and you need to be playing on a map that works for LRMs. And even then LRMs still arnt as good as other weapons...

Thats such a ridiculous assumption to balance LRMs around... that your team has to equipped to abuse LRMs and the enemy team has to be completely unequipped to deal with them AND you have to be playing on a map thats conducive to using LRMs.

If thats what PGI is going for theyve done it wrong.

Edited by Khobai, 19 October 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[Spheroid]

@Khobai: ECM no longer impedes lock time on LoS targets. It lost a great deal of utility this last patch.

[Nightbird]

Add coordination computers (C3 Master, slave, improved, etc) into the game for sharing target data and locks, otherwise all you get is a 'target spotted' icon on your map and have to get your own locks.

There's no other solution.

But PGI will never do it, so there.

[Khobai]

Spheroid, on 19 October 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

@Khobai: ECM no longer impedes lock time on LoS targets. It lost a great deal of utility this last patch.

ECM still prevents targeting in the first place though. Thats the ability that counters LRMs.

ECM not reducing lock time as much affects streaks more than it does LRMs.

Nightbird, on 19 October 2018 - 11:10 AM, said:

Add coordination computers (C3 Master, slave, improved, etc) into the game for sharing target data and locks, otherwise all you get is a 'target spotted' icon on your map and have to get your own locks.

There's no other solution.

PGI should just do what everyone has told them to do for years. Buff direct LRMs and nerf indirect LRMs unless the target is TAGGED or NARCED. Instead PGI goes and nerfs Artemis... and still nobody understands why they did that.

That and PGI should make as much of the terrain destructible as possible. Explosive weapons like missiles should be able to destroy/deform terrain. Mechwarrior 3 had that feature 19 years ago. You could blow up buildings and make huge craters in the ground with LRMs. Why isnt that in MWO?

One of the biggest reasons LRMs suck is because of invincible terrain that you can hide behind for the entire game. If LRMs could destroy/deform terrain they would gain a lot of added utility as a map terraforming weapon. Why do 20 year old predecessors of the game do things better than MWO does? Why PGI Why?

And PGI needs to make LRMs actually functional as long range weapons. LRMs are pretty useless past 500m-600m because of how easy they are to dodge. LRMs are supposed to outrange IS-ERLLs! They fall tremendously short of being a long range missile. LRMs need greatly increased max velocity BUT they should accelerate gradually upto that max velocity. That buffs their upper range limit without making them better at short range or medium range.

Edited by Khobai, 19 October 2018 - 02:52 PM.