323 replies to this topic

[Storm Rider 823]

I just have one concern. I don't LRM boat like a typical one. I advance with the team, and run a Rainbow Fire Catapult. and despite this being more fun, I still am near helpless when someone enters my minimum range. I'm not saying remove it, because it adds strategics and placement, but if we are leaning towards more "brawly" LRM boats, or at least ones that are going to be closer to the thick of things, maybe reduce that minimum range by 20 meters or so? Obv there are other options such as SSRM and MRM, but for a pure LRM build that reduction could mean the difference between life and death.

Obv this is towards IS LRM boats. Clan Mechs are going to enjoy this change very much >:3

And tbh, even if the reduction isn't added, I still see LRM boats joining the rest of their lance from now on, which is a welcome change!

Edited by Storm Rider 823, 15 January 2019 - 07:11 AM.

[dwwolf]

Todd Marshall, on 15 January 2019 - 06:45 AM, said:

I've made an experiment, running near exclusively lurms, on an alt account. The account is now rated in the top 0,4% percentile of all players, via the Jarl's list. The experiment started in Tier 2. I should not be able to do this.
For those willing to check for proof, the account's name is Peter Halcyon.
Lurms aren't hard to play, if anything the lock on enabled me to spend more time reading the battlegrid, anticipating enemy movement and to act accordingly. The DPS is out of this world. If targets are under ECM/AMS shoot a different target.
If people underrun your minimum range you've done it wrong, or the game is near a loss anyways.

...0,4 percentile...
Granted, I used only C-LRMS, but seriosly.
Stop crying for buffs to an outrageously overpowered weapons system.

False equivalency : high damage =/ good weapon in this case.

LRM damage is all over. It gets a low amount of kills ( which is what matters ) for the damage they do.
LRM is king in wasting damage.

[I D K]

I typically use lrms in a supplemental and support role when I use them and then from 200-400m and usually firing over teammates in a direct fire manner. Making the trajectory too low would be highly detrimental. We need to be able to fire them over teammates. We already have srms, mrms, and atms using flat trajectories. I do encourage an increase in both std heat and ghost heat however and those without direct line of sight a widening of the spread and lessening of tracking strength.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

just an idea, but:

why not reward direct-fire with more damage? meaning: cut some damage from the indirect-firing warheads.
mechanically, that way you get the backfielders where it hurts them: raw-damage-numbers and matchscore, and you actively encourage direct fire at the same time with a higher lock-on speed, unaltered damage, tighter spread and higher projectile-speed.

more spread etc doesn't 'hurt' at all, since it's still the same damage (and thx to the current matchscore system, that's -the- thing people are going for). just use the stick AND the carrot to get people where you want them.

[Hawok79]

This, is the first sensible approach since a long time ... make something of it.
...and it would be a good opportunity to introduce Passive Radar as it was in MW4.

No possibility to get lock on below 500m(for example), with the consequences to have no radar too.

Greetings

[MechWarrior0547472]

These changes play right into my playstyle. Then again, I don't boat or hide at the back of the map.

For those of you worried about hitting team mates in the back. This happens to me under the current version. It's probably happened to everybody at some point, with all weapon types. Just apologise and keep fighting.

As are as the numbers go, I'm going to wait until they're finalised and have had a chance to play with them.

[Todd Marshall]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 07:14 AM, said:

False equivalency : high damage =/ good weapon in this case.

LRM damage is all over. It gets a low amount of kills ( which is what matters ) for the damage they do.
LRM is king in wasting damage.

While true, it still enables your friendlies to pick off components and take the kills. IMO lurms aren't fun to play, aren't fun to play against and if wielded by a halfway competent player offer way too big an advantage. Just like strikes.

Also there's the nasty habit of high damage numbers, thus matchscore and thus advancement in tier to reinforce bad behavior. Lurmageddons happening during damage number and matchscore events are hardly a coincidence.

Edited by Todd Marshall, 15 January 2019 - 08:08 AM.

[dwwolf]

DAEDALOS513, on 15 January 2019 - 06:26 AM, said:

As it should be.. what's your point?
Also, I wouldn't call AMS a hard counter in the least.. when almost half the team needs to carry AMS to negate or significantly diffuse the dmg potential of just ONE lurm boat, the balance scales are off.

Instead of improving your gameplay with real weapons, you want to take the easy route and are begging PGI to design a weapon around your relatively lower experience level. A weapon system that will compensate for your lack of aiming/fighting skills. What's truly lacking here, at its core, is your motivation to become a better player. Do you not see how silly your arguments are?

The question is : what is your point ?
All the drawbacks you list for DF weapons exist for LRMs as they are inherent in its weapon design in game. You literally cannot aim with LRMs.
The very vocal LRM = god weapon minority in this thread has little bearing on what is actually happening during matches.
You usually see one LRM boat per side and maybe 1 more mech that has an LRM somewhere.

And before the 2018 buff you hardly saw LRMs ...at all.
DF mechs dropping into matches outnumber LRM mechs somewhere between 12:1 to 6:1

[HammerMaster]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 04:01 AM, said:

Hogwash ,LRM IDF does NOT require C3 in battletech rules it just requires a spotter mech with LoS to the target, just the way it is in MWO. Range is calculated from the firing mech with an additional +1 tHt difficulty due to IDF and guess what , IDF in MWO is harder at long range ..the target has ~5.1 seconds to react, I have no way to know IF the lock is viable with certainty due to terrain.

If you want parity ....where are the to hit penalties for long range for all the other weapons ?

All C3 does in BT rules is allow shooters to use the closest range of anyone in C3Net ( and the master comp includes free TAG ).

You realize this is actually my point?
There is a difference from ACTIVELY spotting and just hitting R on the dorito.
TAG is actively spotting. NARC is mechanically doing so. So unless you did TARGET SPOTTED on the wheel your not actively spotting.

[DAEDALOS513]

Todd Marshall, on 15 January 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

While true, it still enables your friendlies to pick off components and take the kills. IMO lurms aren't fun to play, aren't fun to play against and if wielded by a halfway competent player offer way too big an advantage. Just like strikes.

That's something the newer players aren't considering.. if they make lrms as useful as direct fire weapons... than actual capable pilots will start using them and ttk newer players (ie. lurm lovers) will decrease making the game less enjoyable for them.

Be careful what you ask for and be happy with what you got..

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 08:13 AM, said:

The question is : what is your point ? All the drawbacks you list for DF weapons exist for LRMs as they are inherent in its weapon design in game. You literally cannot aim with LRMs. The very vocal LRM = god weapon minority in this thread has little bearing on what is actually happening during matches. You usually see one LRM boat per side and maybe 1 more mech that has an LRM somewhere. And before the 2018 buff you hardly saw LRMs ...at all. DF mechs dropping into matches outnumber LRM mechs somewhere between 12:1 to 6:1

This ratio makes sense because most weapons in this game are direct fire and lrms are the only indirect fire.. so the ratio looks about right.. still not sure I understand what your point is.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 January 2019 - 09:57 AM.

[dwwolf]

HammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 08:27 AM, said:

You realize this is actually my point?
There is a difference from ACTIVELY spotting and just hitting R on the dorito.
TAG is actively spotting. NARC is mechanically doing so. So unless you did TARGET SPOTTED on the wheel your not actively spotting.

And this is bad how ? Being in LoS is dangerous. Just like in BT boardgame using TAG provides extra benefits.

[Nightbird]

I think a a needed change is actually to cut the MS earned from pure damage by 50%, so that it better presents the value of spread damage without component destruction/KMDD/kills.

[HammerMaster]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

And this is bad how ? Being in LoS is dangerous. Just like in BT boardgame using TAG provides extra benefits.

No this is good the change. Previous it was stealing.

[Kalimaster]

I think this move is unnecessary. MRM's already fill the role of long range direct fire weapons, as terrain limits this ability. But nerfing LRM's when they are already difficult to manage to get good damage as an indirect fire tilts the game towards railroading it towards brawling. Not everyone enjoys or is good at brawling, and LRM's give some of these people a viable weapons platform. While some buff as direct fire would be okay, the purposed penalties to not having a target in sight is harmful to these players.

Already many players refuse to help in any way those who use LRMs, and often tell other players not to use the R key. Even if a target is in sight, it is difficult to get a lock on a target. Then I have seen for myself, a visible target, in range, but my sensors have not detected said opponent, even at 500 meters, so I can't use LRM's. This is not an isolated incident. Then you have AMS and ECM.

I would like to see this done to ER LRMs when they are finally placed into play, Not now. I saw this proposal long ago here on the forms, and I am against this change s I was then. I just finished a game, did 250 something in damage with LRM's with a heavy Mech. Nearly ran out of ammo, and I had six tons of ammo with modifiers. So already not good.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Didn't this go live a few patches ago, then removed ? From what i remember the direct fire lrms was terrible because it hit everything except for intended target. People that would normally lrm at 300-500 meters were purposely trying to keep indirect locks on targets to keep the arc.

[WarmasterRaptor]

YES! Finally
Very good idea to revisit this weapon system with these changes

I'm eager to see the spread difference between Indirect and Direct fire.
30% on average for the spread difference? Maybe that's too little?
(meaning here that the IND spread is not large enough VS DIR LoS)

Anyway, want to test

[dwwolf]

DAEDALOS513, on 15 January 2019 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's something the newer players aren't considering.. if they make lrms as useful as direct fire weapons... than actual capable pilots will start using them and ttk newer players (ie. lurm lovers) will decrease making the game less enjoyable for them.

Be careful what you ask for and be happy with what you got..



This ratio makes sense because most weapons in this game are direct fire and lrms are the only indirect fire.. so the ratio looks about right.. still not sure I understand what your point is.

The point is that LRMs are not a problem.
LRMs have a unique niche, they are not an OP damage application system ( as evidenced by useage in matches or rather their absence ) they benefit from player collaboration ( active spotting/NARC ).

The question remains :

What role do we want LRMs to have ?
Because direct fire weapons will always be better at direct damage application.
And making LRMs better while firing with LoS will encroach heavily on other missile weapon systems. ( and that mainly because long range clear Line of Sight is rare in many maps ). And long clear sight ranges will benefit DF weapons just the same if not more.

And make no mistake : with the current changes Direct LoS LRM fire will impact in ~60% of the current area. And with NARC/Art IV. That will change to an area of about 29% of the current size. They might as well be ATMs then.

PGI needs to figure out a role for LRMs that makes sense.
IMHO we already have one : versatile( target selection ) if inefficient long range (indirect) support fire.

It may be less capable of player skill growth than DF weapons but I am not sure that is a bad thing.

[HammerMaster]

Racerxintegra2k, on 15 January 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

Didn't this go live a few patches ago, then removed ? From what i remember the direct fire lrms was terrible because it hit everything except for intended target. People that would normally lrm at 300-500 meters were purposely trying to keep indirect locks on targets to keep the arc.

They stated it wasn't ready to go in the wild.
The in LOS spread/speed buff vs out of LOS speed/spread nerf is the difference maker.
AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN RALLYING FOR FOR A LONG TIME.
Sandbaggers and parasitic lock farmers will have to re learn and its UP TO YOU TO TEACH THEM.

Edited by HammerMaster, 15 January 2019 - 10:41 AM.

[dwwolf]

HammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

No this is good the change. Previous it was stealing.

LMAO changing the goalposts much ?

It seems like the real goal is Nerf LRMs into the ground again ( like during most of MWOs existence ) by making IDF unusable again.

[HammerMaster]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

The point is that LRMs are not a problem.
LRMs have a unique niche, they are not an OP damage application system ( as evidenced by useage in matches or rather their absence ) they benefit from player collaboration ( active spotting/NARC ).

The question remains :

What role do we want LRMs to have ?
Because direct fire weapons will always be better at direct damage application.
And making LRMs better while firing with LoS will encroach heavily on other missile weapon systems. ( and that mainly because long range clear Line of Sight is rare in many maps ). And long clear sight ranges will benefit DF weapons just the same if not more.

And make no mistake : with the current changes Direct LoS LRM fire will impact in ~60% of the current area. And with NARC/Art IV. That will change to an area of about 29% of the current size. They might as well be ATMs then.

PGI needs to figure out a role for LRMs that makes sense.
IMHO we already have one : versatile( target selection ) if inefficient long range (indirect) support fire.

It may be less capable of player skill growth than DF weapons but I am not sure that is a bad thing.

It is not good now.
Top guys already stated if you want LRM to shine bring all launchers (SuperNova etc) and nothing else.
That's not BattleTech.
Mixed builds is Battetech.
The arms race of missle vs ams vs ammo bonus and the tonnage/efficacy buffs has huge launchers without Artemis, LOTS of ammo no backups. It's out of control.

Edited by HammerMaster, 15 January 2019 - 10:50 AM.