265 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

Last event queue, i was talking to people in a couple of games and it turns out that at least some people use joysticks to aim in this game, not mice.

Im not knocking that - the people i spoke to knew they were massively disadvantaging themselves and did it for immersion reasons anyway, and that's fair enough, but i do think it might be related to the way LRMs are perceived very differently in different tiers - it seems obvious that lock on weapons become dramatically more valuable when aiming direct fire is much harder (especially holding laser burns on target).

[Divkrd]

Saved By The Bell, on 02 April 2023 - 04:04 AM, said:

Looks like bad players with DATA, bad map for LRM, died fast.

So, LRM need a company, we all know it.

no no no, DATA said lurms are low skill, easy to use weapon, there is no excuse to not carry the game according to his logic.

and he was among 3 last players on his team

and the game was not so badly balanced as you may expect

Edited by Divkrd, 02 April 2023 - 07:08 AM.

[Storky]

LRMs looks okay now, the can pwn time to time in proper hands, just like LBX or AC-5, but generally they are not annoying anymore at tier 1. Hence less reason to install AMS.
Request to nerf lurms in 2023 looks stupid.

[Ballistic Panicmode]

Another round of Lurm hating, not much special here.

Sure, there are problems with LRM's but they're not as simple as a velocity nerf (and I do enjoy playing LRM's). I expect to get some hate from both sides of the issue.

First, the indirect / direct toggle is broken. plenty of terrain does not get recognized as something that should be arced over, so your missiles end up planting into the hillside. The target decay / radar dep skills have been gone over ad nauseum. AMS is either OP or ineffective, depending on how many hardpoints a chassis has, and either way, a far cry from the dubious choice they are in the tabletop game. Clan LRM Launchers weigh half what IS launchers weigh, with little if any penalty to compensate. They even have a damage ramp down under minimum range, unlike the hard limit of IS launchers. Many of these problems have come about from efforts to "fix" LRM's one way or another.

My first thought to make things better would be to separate the launchers into different types. First is the Ballistic LRM launcher which fires in the high ballistic arc, every time, reliably. The second is the Direct LRM launcher which uses the shallow direct fire arc currently in the game. The IS launchers would fire all the missiles as an instant "block" of missiles as they do now.

Second, Clan launchers fire in a stream as they do now, and are only available as direct fire. This would help to balance the tonnage advantage of Clan launchers, and would be perfectly in line with Clan combat doctrine. (Yes, lore reasons) I've enjoyed LRM play for 7 years and even I think the LRM 120 boats are ridiculous.

The only thing I can think of to address the AMS problem is to reduce ammo count per ton / increase heat for these system. Make them effective, but at a meaningful cost. Too many of the buffs made, in general, over the years have reduced or removed the meaningful cost of systems and build styles, which is what keeps the game in balance.

ECM - Maybe a "ramp down" of effectiveness with distance from the ECM equipped Mech, if that doesn't require too much coding work. ECM is supposed to be much more rare than it is, but player choice is player choice.

All right, bring the hate.

[Zac Baran]

1)
Regarding the skill requirement, if you mean that a beginner can do some damage in a low tier band by just locking in place and pressing a button, then this claim is correct.
However, in a high tier zone, where there are players who should naturally be well versed in countermeasures against LRM, this assertion is incorrect.

3)
ECM spamming is occurring not only as an effective countermeasure to LRM, but also to improve concealment of long-range builds and fast mechs, and to delay detection by allies.
Even if LRM were removed from the game, there would still be numerous mechs equipped with ECM.
If you think your assertion is correct and mine is incorrect, please remove the lock-on speed reduction from the ECM effect and see how many ECM Mechs are reduced. You are more than welcome to do so.

Also, could you please tell me what exactly you mean by all the other countermeasures that have been directly or indirectly weakened?
It seems to me that the countermeasures against LRM, such as updating the skill tree and strengthening AMS, have been strengthened, contrary to what you claim.

5)
Mechs with multiple AMS/LAMS already provide ample deterrence against missiles.
The mere presence of a KIT FOX or CORSAIR will greatly limit the enemy team's LRM boat activity.
The ability to significantly weaken the enemy's entire missile arsenal with a weight of only 3 to 6 tons makes it a very cost-effective piece of equipment.

7)
Does this more than compensate for the weakening that the current LRM continues to suffer directly and indirectly, and for the deficiencies that have been left unchecked for so long?
To name a few: the increase in ECM Mech, the decrease in points required to obtain RaderDep and ECM skills, the addition and modification of maps that are unfavorable to LRM, and the enhancement of AMS (more ammo, removal of detonation, lower heat generation), the relative weakening of non-LRM weapons by strengthening them, and The fact that very unfavorable maps such as Solaris City have not been fixed.
The trajectory of the missiles can easily hit obstacles, and even under conditions where the missiles are supposed to be in indirect fire, they may switch to direct fire on their own, resulting in all missiles hitting obstacles. Moreover, the player has no control over this.


PROBLEM)
The reason you don't get your warning in time is not because the missile is too fast, but because you are either too close to your opponent, or you are taking direct fire, or both.
In this case, it is your positioning that is the problem, not the speed of the LRM.
If your opponent had used a weapon other than the LRM, you would most likely have taken more damage, and without any warning sound.

The realization you should get from this experience is not "the missile is too fast", but rather the unfortunate current state of the LRM, which cannot expect to get a decent hit except in these circumstances.
If the speed of the missile were slowed down enough to allow for evasion from warning in that situation, the LRM would be even less useful at medium to long range than it is now. Such a thing is not a "Long Range" Missile or anything else.


PROPOSAL)
I think the LRM is already well balanced or conversely a weak weapon. If the LRM were truly a powerful weapon, more Tier 1 players would be using it (What percentage of Tier 1 players use LRM? How does this compare to other weapons such as ER-LL, LPL, ER-PPC, Gauss, AC, and UAC?).

The name "Long Range" Missile is a bad joke; the actual range is significantly shorter than other favored long-range weapons, The slow bullet speed and lock-on system make it useless at long range, and the weapon can only be used properly at short to medium ranges, taking advantage of indirect fire.
What you are referring to as "PROBLEM" is not a problem, it is simply the proper use of the weapon by the enemy.

The slow bullet speed and lock-on are not in line with the current environment. On top of that, ECM and other countermeasures abound, and any Mech can greatly reduce its threat with only 10 skill points.
What other weapon provides a countermeasure as easy and as powerful as the RaderDep?

Its success depends heavily on the map and the composition of the enemy team. It requires large amounts of ammunition, the damage it inflicts is spread out, requires the cooperation of allies, and unlike many other long-range weapons, it is severely weakened at close range and is one-sidedly defeated by mechs using ECM or RaderDep.

Edited by Zac Baran, 20 August 2023 - 05:07 AM.

[PocketYoda]

feeWAIVER, on 14 March 2023 - 06:46 AM, said:

Fun fact, lurmers make up only 13% of the population, but are responsible for 52% of their own team damage.

Edited by PocketYoda, 03 May 2023 - 12:17 AM.

[Vonbach]

Imagine the screeching if gauss rifles and er large lasers needed locks to fire at targets. If anything LRMs need a buff.

[sycocys]

Zac Baran, on 02 May 2023 - 11:14 PM, said:

The reason you don't get your warning in time is not because the missile is too fast, but because you are either too close to your opponent, or you are taking direct fire, or both.
In this case, it is your positioning that is the problem, not the speed of the LRM.
If your opponent had used a weapon other than the LRM, you would most likely have taken more damage, and without any warning sound.

There are 2 reasons he wouldn't get a warning -
1 - most likely, most of the volleys were dumb-fired at his dire whale standing in the open staring through the viewfinder.
2 - his sound mod caused the warning not to load or override another priority sound with a long tail.

Both reasons are his fault.

[LordNothing]

id like to put the long back into long range missiles. not a big fan of automatic arc switch, restore the high arc. if you want more direct fire lerms bring in streak lrms or mmls in the upcoming weapons patch and flatten out atms more (they shouldn't even have indirect fire, but you can sometimes successfully use them on targets you cannot see). you might be able to do something with artemis where you always get a high arc, and a low arc for standard lrms or make missile arc a skill.

[Novakaine]

Facehuggers get got.

[Battlemaster56]

I say nerfing radar deep will be a good step for buffing lock on weapons in general, but if thatynot a option buff lrm velocity and reduce the lock on time so they be more reliable to use, because it really ridiculous keeping locks even with direct fire since you can just walk to a nearby hill or rock and the lock is completely gone instantly

[PocketYoda]

Lurmers need to be forced to get their own targets.. not depend on the team. That is my only real gripe with Lrms.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

it's simply amazing how one guy opens a troll-thread and keeps the forum busy with it for months,
meaning: YOU're keeping it alive, while he's laughing his trolling behind off.
you guys are doing it wrong.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 04 May 2023 - 04:52 AM.

[Blood Rose]

PocketYoda, on 03 May 2023 - 11:42 PM, said:

Lurmers need to be forced to get their own targets.. not depend on the team. That is my only real gripe with Lrms.

LRM's have been capable of indirect fire via allied target locks in the TT game since day one. Its an important element to the game and setting, and I honestly find having an allied missile boat raining on my fat target a real boon. Dont want to be missiled, get in close, stay behind heavy cover, or mount some AMS.

[LordNothing]

PocketYoda, on 03 May 2023 - 11:42 PM, said:

Lurmers need to be forced to get their own targets.. not depend on the team. That is my only real gripe with Lrms.

the problem with that is they gave everyone free c3, which is not supposed to be how targeting works. fast locks and useful bap should be things, and very strong tag/narc, but they would need to come at the cost of having c3 equipment in play and giving players the option to run passive sensors. it worked for mwll.

i get my own locks, and lock times are still attrocious, and the equipment to counter ecm is weak (they did buff the weight/slottage but its still weak). so i bring ppcs to counter the ecm. i can make it work, but its easier to turn down my mouse sensitivity and use direct fire.

Edited by LordNothing, 04 May 2023 - 11:00 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Blood Rose, on 04 May 2023 - 08:19 AM, said:

LRM's have been capable of indirect fire via allied target locks in the TT game since day one. Its an important element to the game and setting, and I honestly find having an allied missile boat raining on my fat target a real boon. Dont want to be missiled, get in close, stay behind heavy cover, or mount some AMS.

I don't care.. most lurmers use them in this game as crutch.. They should be forced to have the legitimate mech loadouts (not C3 on everything) and work as hard as the rest of the team not sit at the back asking for locks 24/7...

LordNothing, on 04 May 2023 - 10:54 AM, said:

the problem with that is they gave everyone free c3, which is not supposed to be how targeting works. fast locks and useful bap should be things, and very strong tag/narc, but they would need to come at the cost of having c3 equipment in play and giving players the option to run passive sensors. it worked for mwll.

i get my own locks, and lock times are still attrocious, and the equipment to counter ecm is weak (they did buff the weight/slottage but its still weak). so i bring ppcs to counter the ecm. i can make it work, but its easier to turn down my mouse sensitivity and use direct fire.

Exactly my point.. C3 on everything was a massive mistake. And same i always try for my own locks if i ever use Lrms..

Edited by PocketYoda, 04 May 2023 - 11:46 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

PocketYoda, on 04 May 2023 - 11:42 PM, said:

I don't care.. most lurmers use them in this game as crutch.. They should be forced to have the legitimate mech loadouts (not C3 on everything) and work as hard as the rest of the team not sit at the back asking for locks 24/7...

I see this "C3 on everything" statement repeated every once in a while, but ..

PocketYoda, on 04 May 2023 - 11:42 PM, said:

Exactly my point.. C3 on everything was a massive mistake. And same i always try for my own locks if i ever use Lrms..

... where exactly do mechs in MW:O have an C3 equivalent "installed"?

Just to be clear: The ability to fire at a target indirectly with LRM is not a C3 perk

[edit]Or is this whining really about getting the target's paperdoll information ... which an indirect attack with any type of missile cannot utilize in any meaningful way?![/edit]

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 05 May 2023 - 07:39 AM.

[LordNothing]

Der Geisterbaer, on 05 May 2023 - 07:35 AM, said:

I see this "C3 on everything" statement repeated every once in a while, but ..



... where exactly do mechs in MW:O have an C3 equivalent "installed"?

Just to be clear: The ability to fire at a target indirectly with LRM is not a C3 perk

[edit]Or is this whining really about getting the target's paperdoll information ... which an indirect attack with any type of missile cannot utilize in any meaningful way?![/edit]

normally you would need to have equipment installed for target sharing. however target sharing is intrinsic to mwo's targeting mechanics and not tied to a piece of equipment. originally you had master and slave units, you would need a master and you can extend the network with a slave unit, and any mech in range of the network could then share data. mwll simplified this by doing c3i instead, which eliminates the need for a master for your slave units to work, and it behaves more as a peer to peer network, even a single unit could provide useful functionality. in mwll you could play c3 mechs early game to get cbills to get a better mech later (and gave lights something to do in the process). without those networks in play you would mostly be going by the mk1 eyeball and maybe comms.

of course mwll let you change mechs throughout a match or respawn in something else. so if you suddenly found a need for c3 you could usually get someone to take such a mech or take one yourself. an mwo match mostly relies on what people bring (barring mech select feature which may or may not happen). maybe after we get those features we can look at maybe doing c3 the right way, or at least the mwll way. but that would have to come with serious buffs to lock times, bap, tag, narc, and possibly the missiles themselves. lermers can no longer ask people to hold locks, because they cant, it wont do anything without the equipment. if you want to help lermers or work with a buddy then you can equip your mechs appropriately. my stance is that lerms should be strong as a teamwork oriented weapon but fall short when used passively.

also c3 doesnt mean free idf. narc, tag, uavs can work just as well for that. but it does mean that you need it to hold locks, and both you and the lerm boat need to be in the same network. thus your lerm boats need to be close enough to the team to be in the c3 network if they expect any kind of support. this forces solo lermers to do some work, or work as part of a group, either one will improve lerms greatly without making them op.

Edited by LordNothing, 05 May 2023 - 11:03 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

LordNothing, on 05 May 2023 - 11:02 AM, said:

normally you would need to have equipment installed for target sharing.

~erm~ How to put this nicely? It would appear that Battletech actually deems that type of equipment as being part of mechs because the actual rules of Battletech include indirect LRM fire without the presence of more dedicated stuff like C3.
The only BT rule set that I could name from the top of my head that didn't include indirect LRM fire were the original Battledroids rules from the 80ies.

So this brings me back to this still rather unfounded claim that MW:O has every mech include C3 and/or the incorrect notion that indirect fire in BT requires additional equipment beyond the basic sensor and communication systems that all mechs have.

LordNothing, on 05 May 2023 - 11:02 AM, said:

however target sharing is intrinsic to mwo's targeting mechanics and not tied to a piece of equipment. originally you had master and slave units, you would need a master and you can extend the network with a slave unit, and any mech in range of the network could then share data.

And this is where you're friggin' wrong. The current Battletech rules include indirect fire rules for LRMs without any such devices.
I'll just quote the version from Total Warfare 7th printing (page 111) (rules since 2006):

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly.
Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target
to attack that target, though a friendly ground unit must have a valid
line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). In order
to serve as a spotter, the unit must not have charged or launched a
Death From Above attack that turn. An attacker with a valid LOS to
a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that attack
would have a better to-hit modifier.
Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are launched.

Alternatively I can quote the "SPECIAL CASE RULES" from p. 92 of the Battletech Compendium, Third Printing ca. 1995):

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly.
Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target
to attack that target, though a friendly ground unit must have a valid
line of sight to the target. Resolve LRM indirect fire attacks in the turn they are launched (rather than allowing flight time as for artillery)

The "original" Battletech Compendium from 1990 had it on p. 60

The Battletech Master Rules (around 2001 to 2006) include the same rules (somewhere between page 80 and 85 depending on which version you're looking at)


=> No, you do not need master and slave units (or their improved versions) in Battletech for indirect LRM fire. C3 actually came later than those indirect fire rules and they have functionalities that simply do not apply to MW:O

LordNothing, on 05 May 2023 - 11:02 AM, said:

mwll simplified this by doing c3i instead, which eliminates the need for a master for your slave units to work, and it behaves more as a peer to peer network, even a single unit could provide useful functionality. in mwll you could play c3 mechs early game to get cbills to get a better mech later (and gave lights something to do in the process). without those networks in play you would mostly be going by the mk1 eyeball and maybe comms.

I'm hestitant to ask for relevance of how MW:LL did things when talking about MW:O allegedly making C3 the default or how MW:LL supposedly "simplified" an already simple table top rule set that - contrary to your claims - did not necessitate master and slave units to begin with.

LordNothing, on 05 May 2023 - 11:02 AM, said:

[snip the rest].

So a whole lot of nothing that would actually answer my question where this ill-informed claim about MW:O supposedly having given C3 to all mechs where it shouldn't comes from

Anyone else with a better explaination?

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 05 May 2023 - 11:59 AM.

[LordNothing]

maybe you are playing the wrong game then. concessions have to be made for a live game. mwll had a very good electronic warfare system, one of the best ive seen in a game, and to just handwave it away because a manual for a table top game said so is kind of silly.