241 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 January 2024 - 01:34 PM, said:

I guess they could improve LRM ranges without coders. There are quite a few weapons outside the ER-[X] spectrum and standard Gauss that "should" have lower range than LRMs but have higher ranges than LRM in MW:O when compared against the source material.

Such a change wouldn't necessarily help with actually hitting (reasonably) well played sniper mechs but it would certainly help with some level of suppressive fire ... and if they dared to go for equal max range to ER-[X] type weaponry the whole "haha, you can't even hit me because I can shoot so much farther so I'll just stand here" would go out of the window entirely ~shrug~

You are probably correct on both.. adding range and it wouldn't help most likely much because flight time is so long to even 1km and getting lock could be bit problematic... depends on how much range would be past 1km.
It would go against cauldrons goals by making passive LRM play stronger (sit in cover while someone else gets those locks for the boat).

[Bassault]

Vonbach, on 15 January 2024 - 04:09 PM, said:

If LRMs had the range they did in the game they'd actually be able to counter the blue fiashlight cult
and we cant have that can we?

Actually snipers would see the missiles coming from a mile away and then just take cover before it hit them. Or just do what they do now. Alpha, then take cover, you get nothing.

[Samziel]

Vonbach, on 15 January 2024 - 05:17 PM, said:

Well with all the laundry list of LRM counters like too low velocity radar derp whatever yeah.

If we start to buff the velocity to counter snipers LRMs will be opressive against everything else before you start hitting them.

Range could be infinite. Locks could be instant. LRMs are still not counter to snipers.

Edited by Samziel, 16 January 2024 - 12:58 AM.

[Meep Meep]

The counter to a sniper is either your own sniper or a yapping light sent to annoy them. Unless its a dumb sniper who is out of position then you just roll them up with a pack of whatever can reach them.

[Battlemaster56]

Samziel, on 16 January 2024 - 12:51 AM, said:

If we start to buff the velocity to counter snipers LRMs will be opressive against everything else before you start hitting them.

Range could be infinite. Locks could be instant. LRMs are still not counter to snipers.

To who low tier/casual players who stand out in the open 24/7 they'll still do it regardless, because right even trying to use LRMs even in direct fire is so bad because anything will still out trade you even getting the jump on them in the open.

The weapon system is in a hilarious bad position and the leaked changes that suggested is not gonna help Artemis is still to heavy and bulky to reasonably boated with enough ammo and tonnage for back up weapons and heatsinks. They desperately needs velocity just to be useful.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Then you'll want to use mechs with high velocity quirks.

https://mwomercs.com...elocity-quirks/

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Battlemaster56, on 16 January 2024 - 06:22 AM, said:

The weapon system is in a hilarious bad position and the leaked changes that suggested is not gonna help Artemis is still to heavy and bulky to reasonably boated with enough ammo and tonnage for back up weapons and heatsinks. They desperately needs velocity just to be useful.

TBH, I question the validity of "they only need velocity". If that were true, wouldn't the Whammy be used a lot more with it's 40% velocity quirk? How fast do people think they honestly should be? Do you really think they should be landing in the span of trading with direct fire?

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 January 2024 - 04:37 PM.

[Battlemaster56]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 16 January 2024 - 04:36 PM, said:

TBH, I question the validity of "they only need velocity". If that were true, wouldn't the Whammy be used a lot more with it's 40% velocity quirk? How fast do people think they honestly should be? Do you really think they should be landing in the span of trading with direct fire?

The 7S gives lrm's generally the same missile speed as atm's and even then I'm still gonna be in a disadvantage against let's a say a dakka wolf boating ac5's with a velocity of 1500 those shots are gonna land more than the slow *** missiles that takes a good second to reach the mech in even terrain and more often with half the cooldown,

Lrm's, atm's and even streaks could bump their velocity to 350 or hell 385 and it wouldn't cause a panic since it's still below srm and mrm's velocity, and can be more comfortably used in direct fire that you guys want to push and make artemis more viable and it makes slightly more attractive but not much since the upgrades for the trade off of a extra ton and crit slot is a turn off especially or inner sphere mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Battlemaster56, on 16 January 2024 - 05:35 PM, said:

can be more comfortably used in direct fire

So I think the term "direct fire" causes confusion here. When direct fire is mentioned, it is meant to be fired with direct LoS. That does not mean you hold LoS of the target the whole time. Which is what this radar dep change has been aimed at with the lock extension, you acquire lock and fire during the poke and through decay you can ensure the missiles land barring certain kinds of cover. Increasing their velocity so you can actually trade with poke mechs is not the goal that anyone should have because back to the whole risk vs reward thing, that sounds like a lot less risk for a good reward, especially with thunderbolts on the way.

At that point missiles would get used similar to dakka but you can minimize your exposure better, you can punish those caught on a rotation or just in an open lane while minimizing reprisal, much like they were used in MW4, just without the ability to focus sections.

I think the goal is to sort of simulate like they had fire and forget without actually giving them that because of the sins of indirect fire.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 16 January 2024 - 08:56 PM.

[Vonbach]

Bassault, on 15 January 2024 - 10:46 PM, said:

Actually snipers would see the missiles coming from a mile away and then just take cover before it hit them. Or just do what they do now. Alpha, then take cover, you get nothing.

Or you could actually buff the velocity of LRM's so they are actually a threat to things.

[Samziel]

Vonbach, on 16 January 2024 - 10:10 PM, said:

Or you could actually buff the velocity of LRM's so they are actually a threat to things.

Yes. Lets cause an LRM apocalypse by making LRMs fast enough to hit snipers. Because that certainly helped the playerbase last time.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Samziel, on 16 January 2024 - 10:30 PM, said:

Yes. Lets cause an LRM apocalypse by making LRMs fast enough to hit snipers. Because that certainly helped the playerbase last time.

Even if you doubled the velocity (post this next patch, we're talking 320 m/s, and for the record that WOULD be bad), said sniper is still looking at a full 2-3 second warning. That's enough time to alpha and duck as Bassault suggested. But he'd have to work at it, whereas the upcoming velocity gives him 4-6 seconds to get behind a rock, enough time to go for coffee before the missiles hit. That, IMO, is a bit TOO much time.

[Der Geisterbaer]

ScrapIron Prime, on 17 January 2024 - 10:22 AM, said:

Even if you doubled the velocity (post this next patch, we're talking 320 m/s, and for the record that WOULD be bad), said sniper is still looking at a full 2-3 second warning. That's enough time to alpha and duck as Bassault suggested. But he'd have to work at it, whereas the upcoming velocity gives him 4-6 seconds to get behind a rock, enough time to go for coffee before the missiles hit. That, IMO, is a bit TOO much time.

However. their argument against this - and there they are not incorrect - is not about the time it takes to reach your typical sniper (that thay can't actually reach due to the range disadvantage against Gauss or anything with ER-Large Lasers / ER-PPC / Light PCC varieties and even someof the non-ER stuff that - by TT standards - shouldn't have a range greater than LRM) but instead about what would happen at let's say 250 to 750 meters ... and there things could indeed turn back into "lurmaggedon" territory.

=> Where I'm not too sure about the current approch is that it isn't necessarily about standard LRM having their velocity dropped in general to make things more "bearable" at lower than maximum ranges (direct or indirect fire) but rather about how low the new value actually is without a ) a range increase that would allow to at least theoretically reach all snipers in the first place (even if it's only via indirect fire or LOS dumb fire at those ranges) and b ) a velocity boost for LRMs with Artemis (to make up for the tonnage difference along with the tighter spread).

[Tarteso]

Samziel, on 16 January 2024 - 10:30 PM, said:

Yes. Lets cause an LRM apocalypse by making LRMs fast enough to hit snipers. Because that certainly helped the playerbase last time.

LURMAGEDDONS LURMAGEDDONS¡¡¡
https://wiki.mwomerc...=Weapon_Systems

Look at the current velocity of direct fire weapons, unguided missiles, and guided missile systems. Particularly, the long range ones. Then compare.

Objectively, you don't have any good reason or excuse, not even one, to nerf them even more. Not until you prove that any raderp nerf is doing LRM OP (ROLF).

But I think you may have "reasons" to do so.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Der Geisterbaer, on 17 January 2024 - 10:50 AM, said:

b ) a velocity boost for LRMs with Artemis (to make up for the tonnage difference along with the tighter spread).

But doesn't NARC take precedence over Artemis? If the target is NARCed, the Artemis missles currently drop in velocity and lose all spread buffs. I think that's still going to happen. So if more boats are running Artemis, NARC will still nerf them for all purposes other than lock on.

[Samziel]

Tarteso, on 17 January 2024 - 11:08 AM, said:

LURMAGEDDONS LURMAGEDDONS¡¡¡
https://wiki.mwomerc...=Weapon_Systems

Look at the current velocity of direct fire weapons, unguided missiles, and guided missile systems. Particularly, the long range ones. Then compare.

Objectively, you don't have any good reason or excuse, not even one, to nerf them even more. Not until you prove that any raderp nerf is doing LRM OP (ROLF).

But I think you may have "reasons" to do so.

You missed the point. I didnt advocate for LRM nerfs. The discussion was about why the weapon is not a counter to snipers.

And, again, the reason is that you cant buff velocity enough without making it unbeliavably unfair and frustrating to everything on the way to snipers. Because it is an auto aim weapon that can indirect fire. We can buff LRM velocity to 300 m/s and snipers still have time to take cover. All it effects is how much mechs closer up enjoy the game.

Last time there were major buffs to LRMs it did cause players to leave the game. It is simply the reason why they wont just buff it. I dont think PGI would allow it either. They've already said they'll adjust as needed. This is not the only patch.

Also "reasons". I enjoy mostly midrange and brawl. I'm not the blue flaslight gang you're thinking of.

Edited by Samziel, 17 January 2024 - 01:15 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

ScrapIron Prime, on 17 January 2024 - 12:34 PM, said:

But doesn't NARC take precedence over Artemis? If the target is NARCed, the Artemis missles currently drop in velocity and lose all spread buffs. I think that's still going to happen. So if more boats are running Artemis, NARC will still nerf them for all purposes other than lock on.

That to me is a separate thing that would have to be addressed as well ... provided that NARC bonuses can be changed just via XML to a point where let's say NARC provides a velocity bonus that is made cumulative to Artemis in some way (additive or by a multiplier > 1). In my previous comment I just expressed my opinion about general impact of velocity increases of base LRM for 250m to 750m (or possibly 900m if ranges of LRM were to be extended to equal "sniper ranges") and what I think Artemis on its own should do regardless of where the base LRM velocity ends up (but not necessarily as low as the recently mentioned 160m/s).

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 17 January 2024 - 01:11 PM.

[torsie]

Would it be possible to give them different speeds and/or damage depending on distance and/or if it is direct/indirect/no-target-locked rocket ?

I will try explaining what is on my mind, it might be chaotic so patience please!

#1 If you make them super strong and super fast on long distance, automatic following, they will be dangerous only to people who like to sit at the end of map without moving.
If you dont want to get rained, just move into the battle and stay with your team.
This could be lets say 1500m+, small than this and it would behave like they do now, and smaller maybe 700+- they could be super fast and less damage? So you can quickly run out of cover, shoot them and hide.

They could be like a variant of those CATM rockets that deal damage when you are close

Or something like:

#2 If you shoot them without target locking on shorter distance, they will work like those MRM (I think thats what I mean) doing "normal" damage but flying fast.

But if you target lock them on short distance, they will fly super high into air, move "slowly" but do "more".

Making big arc would help them hit almost always, unless its super high wall or low ceiling, moving slowly would give you lots of time to react to them, especially AMS would help, if you dont have it stick with your team, this would again make people play "better" and stick together, instead of sitting alone in middle of nowhere and because they would make such a big jump, it would be easier to find your LRM mechs, so they also need to stay around their team.

And as a reward for slow moving rockets, that give lots of warning, they will deal more damage.

And thought number:

#3 Is it possible to make rockets explode when they hit something ? This could help against moving targets or if you lose target lock. Now if you lose target lock on someone all those missiles will just plop next to them and nothing will happen.
All those missiles falling behind you could still be dangerous, which makes them not very helpful .

#4 This is just tiny detail added later, maybe different spread on different ranges could help too? Shooting rockets on longer distance makes them automatically bad, because it takes time and they can hit random stuff along the way. So they would be more accurate.
But shooting on short range gives you less chances to go wrong somewhere, so they would be more spread out?


I wonder what would discord people think, but I am not good with that .

Edited by torsie, 17 January 2024 - 01:44 PM.

[Tarteso]

Samziel, on 17 January 2024 - 01:05 PM, said:

You missed the point. I didnt advocate for LRM nerfs. The discussion was about why the weapon is not a counter to snipers.

And, again, the reason is that you cant buff velocity enough without making it unbeliavably unfair and frustrating to everything on the way to snipers. Because it is an auto aim weapon that can indirect fire. We can buff LRM velocity to 300 m/s and snipers still have time to take cover. All it effects is how much mechs closer up enjoy the game.

Last time there were major buffs to LRMs it did cause players to leave the game. It is simply the reason why they wont just buff it. I dont think PGI would allow it either. They've already said they'll adjust as needed. This is not the only patch.

Also "reasons". I enjoy mostly midrange and brawl. I'm not the blue flaslight gang you're thinking of.

First, I'm sorry, I used "you" instead of "they" (cauldron) in my sentences.

On the other hand, what are (you, they) talking about? "Unbeliavably unfair and frustrating to everything"?" Last time there were major buffs to LRMs it did cause players to leave the game"? Lurmageddons?
Some said something like this in the other (closed) thread. Is this like a mantra?
The only lurmageddons that I remember clearly happened in FP, and they came from coordinated teams.

Please, someone enlighten me. When? What patches did the LRMs so OP to cause massive player losses?
There was a big population decrease around may'18 to feb'20 (see Jarl's list). In this time frame, the changes (related to the missile systems) were:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-apr-2018

Velocity increased to 190 (from 160)

(wait! this is what we have right now!!!)

19-jun-2018

ammo increase from 180 to 240 (all weaps had ammo buffs)


17-jul-2018

heat reduction by 7-10%.
cLRMs spread increased 6-8%

And also an interesting statement about LRMs:

"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. 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..."

Yeah, it was a hard time to get locks. And then, PGI did this:

21-aug-2018

Weapon lock assistance angle tightened by ~50%
Artemis Lock Time Boost and Tracking Strength Boost removed
ECM effect radius increased to 120 meters (from 90 meters.)

MASSIVE NERF, PERIOD.

Oh, but they buffed ATM and streaks: velocity increased around 10%

16-oct-2018

ECM:

• Weapon Lock on Time penalty effect now only affects indirect weapon locks when the firer has no LOS to the target under ECM.
  
• The "low signal" ECM effect now disables the ARTEMIS system's benefits.

19-mar-2019

LOS buffs and IF nerfs, like the angle of attack. 20% more spread for IF.

I'm still awaiting for the supposed benefits of a LOS shallower angle of attack beyond 300m...

...Oh, and Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)

16-apr-2019

tiny missile health increase

------------------------------------------------------------

And then, nothing worth until the more recent nerfs. Wait, something about AMS rof at some time, I think... but I'm tired, too much reading. Oh, and the skill tree rework... low cost raderp for the masses!!!

I only can see here a massive net nerf for the guided missiles over time. How does this sounds like lurms too much op in any damn way?
What seems more likely? people quit playing because lurms too much op OR people quit playing because PGI nerfed the thing in a recent past to the ground (plus a lot of other poor choices)?

And cauldron want LRMs even worse now, with the rampant use of raderp and ecm. And AMS in events LOL. Why?

"They" also said that poor low tier players are exposed to some kind of massive abusse and oppression by LRMs. Where is data proving this? How they know this? Playing their fresh alts in low tiers? Maybe 2-3 lurmers assisted by a narcer to prove their point? If so, it's not the weapon, it's you.


Besides, the current thing about testing balance "buffs" and nerfs altogheter... what the hell method is this? Holistic? ROFLMAO

Good old logic suggest that first, to prove their point, cauldron should release a patch with their laughable raderp nerf alone, so everybody can test if it is some kind of "omfgsooogood" to warrant any nerfs to the LRM. You know, conservative and cautionous changes or something like that, as someone, somewhere said about cauldron balance changes phylosophy.

LOL, c'mon...

GG

Edited by Tarteso, 17 January 2024 - 05:24 PM.

[Besh]

Samziel, on 17 January 2024 - 01:05 PM, said:

~snip

Because it is an auto aim weapon...

~snip

I honestly do not understand where the "LRM = autoAim" mantra comes from . The way I understand how they work, they are not . Player needs to keep Aim on Target to lock, and needs to maintain Aim on Target for the entire flight for them to keep tracking Target ( correct me if I am wrong please ). That is NOT "autoAim" .