125 replies to this topic

[Volthorne]

Noth, on 02 November 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

You just pick and choose what to read instead of reading the entire thing. I said at 1.8 with a slight wider spread ie, not what it was before.

That WAS with a slightly wider spread. From my guesstimates (being a decent LRM platform user and all, I rarely get within visual range of my targets before I run dry), roughly 60-70% of LRMs land on-target with an unassisted lock (I count arms and legs as off-target with the lower angle of approach, since hitting those with LRMs doesn't do much good). With TAG or NARC, ~80% land on-target. This is not counting losses due to AMS.

[Ranzear]

AMS is not a counter to LRM boats. At all. Ever.

It shoots down what... 3-5 missiles of a salvo? Out of 40 to 90 missiles!?

Even with every mech on your team equipped with AMS and huddled together, that means a decent Catapult can still damage you from 1000m without having to aim or maneuver.

LRMs would be perfect as they are right now if they were direct-fire like in MW2, but since they fly over hills and whatnot in MWO and act almost like a top-attack munition their precision is too high for the stand-off capability.

It's a mechanics issue, not a stats issue. AMS is supposed to be the counter to missiles, but almost exactly per why they were developed in canon LRMs just overwhelm it with too many missiles to shoot down.

My proposed solution: When AMS destroys a missile, have that burst destroy other missiles. This makes AMS more effective against tight clusters (read: group fired LRM spam from boats).

Really nobody should care about the damage numbers either. It's all being spread around willy-nilly and not really doing the meat of the objective which is disabling the target. The problem entailed, however, is that this is a cash cow compared to being skillful and getting efficient kills. You're getting 10,000 c-bills for 1000 damage, guaranteed, compared to having to get five kills or assists for the same... Oh wait, you get the assists anyway while spamming damage, and get more assists with your nontrivial cherrytapping, so you actually make easily twice as much money!

[Caleb Lee]

This game is about teamwork. I play mostly Catapults and Hunchbacks so far... have been playing since the Founders packages were introduced. I'm a very good shot with just about any weapon, but prefer Gauss rifles as a whole and always have.

As I play Catapults, I also use LRMs, especially since they nerfed SRMs to the point they are worthless. Streaks need to have their auto CT taken away. It should go where the player aims on the mech.

LRMs are not overpowered, no more so than any other weapon in the game. They are also quite expensive to operate but if you have the cash, and low FPS or something, or simply need to unlock the mech such as in my case, then they are a viable alternative... but only if you have good scouts or team members that can hold a lock. If they take away the current locking mechanism, they really need to fix TAG/Narc as it doesn't do squat right now.

As for counters... since there are so many starter/trial mechs equipped with LRMs:

1) AMS is a must. If you don't have it, then don't come on here and complain. If you have it, stick together so your AMS covers each other. That's part of teamwork.
2) Line of sight - I lose lock all the time and that's wasted C-bills and ammo. Just use terrain to break lock, don't charge in the open. Every map has approach angles that have cover.
3) Power down if you must.
4) Detach light/medium mechs to take out the enemy scouts if they are heavy on missiles. Once they are burned down you can get close and tear up the LRM boats.

The list can go on but you get the idea. You have to adapt each and every match to what your opponents are using and employ teamwork. There is no one size fits all... we usually run a balanced mix of mechs and weapons and adapt our strategy based on what our scouts report or the enemy gives away.

There are a LOT more LRMS right now primarily because there are a LOT more people playing Open Beta who are grinding up rather than buying MC and getting into a good mech. It'll even out over time... There are also more players using LRMs because they don't have viable alternatives. Take my C4. I used to run 4 SRM 6 and 2 Med PLS. That mech gets shredded now instead of actually being a killer mech.

People whining like you all are doing in this thread is what ruined SRMs, they were fine the way they were a few months back. Dumbfire weapons that if the enemy let you get close could rip them apart (if the pilot could lead the lag, missile bay door delay, slow flight speed) etc...

So no, I have to call you guys **** poor players who can't adapt and learn and the only thing you know how to do is cry about it. I eat missile boats for lunch and have a 5-6 win ratio and a 7 or 8 k/d ratio, it used to be higher when I played with a better unit. The one I'm in we constantly have 4-6 pugs unless everyone is on. Whether full pre-made teams or pugs everything I've said above is true. Learn to use the tactics I gave and you'll be alright, also, quit soloing. Get at least a lance of 4 players or more and you'll do alright.

[Noth]

Volthorne, on 02 November 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

That WAS with a slightly wider spread. From my guesstimates (being a decent LRM platform user and all, I rarely get within visual range of my targets before I run dry), roughly 60-70% of LRMs land on-target with an unassisted lock (I count arms and legs as off-target with the lower angle of approach, since hitting those with LRMs doesn't do much good). With TAG or NARC, ~80% land on-target. This is not counting losses due to AMS.

Lol. hitting arms or legs off target? Yes removing potential firepower (even gimping some mechs firepower), or making it even easier for your target to get legged is a wasted missile? You prove my point that you just want them to kill things and not be fire support that can kill things. Oh and before it was not slightly wider spread. Now every single missile will hit a target standing still with most hitting the torsos. On a moving target it spreads a little more, but unless it's a fast mech, pretty much every single one of those missile will hit the target unless you lose lock. Slightly more spread would simply spread the missiles a bit more on the mech rather than making them miss a non moving target.

Powering down is also worthless since when you powerdown you don't move any more and any missile that are in the air will still hit you.

Edited by Noth, 02 November 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Volthorne]

Noth, on 02 November 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Lol. hitting arms or legs off target? Yes removing potential firepower (even gimping some mechs firepower), or making it even easier for your target to get legged is a wasted missile? You prove my point that you just want them to kill things and not be fire support that can kill things. Oh and before it was not slightly wider spread. Now every single missile will hit a target standing still with most hitting the torsos. On a moving target it spreads a little more, but unless it's a fast mech, pretty much every single one of those missile will hit the target unless you lose lock. Slightly more spread would simply spread the missiles a bit more on the mech rather than making them miss a non moving target.

Powering down is also worthless since when you powerdown you don't move any more and any missile that are in the air will still hit you.

I count hitting legs and arms as "off-target" because hitting those with any amount of LRMs is effectively wasting them. Your job - as a fire-support platform - is to soften up the enemy so your team can eliminate them ASAP. Hitting arms and legs does not further that goal.

For the accuracy rating you're reporting, you must be talking about LRM-5's and -10's, because -15's and -20's definitely don't have that small of a spread.

Powering down should only be done behind solid cover. If you power down without a building (or equivalent) in front of you, then you deserve to get hit by LRMs.

Edited by Volthorne, 02 November 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Volthorne]

Ranzear, on 02 November 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

-snip-

And I suppose that you - having JUST joined up in the last 3 days - are qualified to judge the state of LRMs, AMS, and everything else?

This is not a mechanics problem. This is a player problem. People look at LRM boats sitting in the back, look at the scoreboard and go "ZOMG LOOKIT ALL HIS DAMAGE AND ASSISTS!!!11!one!!eleven WHAT A NOOB HE HAS NO SKILL FOR USING LRMS, LRMS ARE OP, NEED NERF" without realizing that piloting an LRM platform is a highly situational job. Team out of position? You're f'ed. Light slipped through? You're f'ed. Bad positioning? You're f'ed. For every good match I've had piloting my CPLT-C1, I've had an equivalent amount of bad matches where my *** was handed to me on a silver platter. You are literally sacrificing a MINIMUM of 20 tonnes and ALL of your flexibility for a single job, and a team-reliant one no less. For every good LRM platform pilot I know or have faced, there are 3 bad pilots. Gameplay is not the problem; People are.

[yoshihiro Kurita]

well I say go back to the drawing board game for answers to questions like this.

I mean I always thought the traditional straight lrm's were NOT guided and required los and did 1 damage.

streaks were the "lockon" version

also mechs getting knocked down were always a big part of the game.-why not knock downs....matches are too quick - need more armour or less firepower.

[Sean von Steinike]

yoshihiro Kurita, on 03 November 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

well I say go back to the drawing board game for answers to questions like this.

I mean I always thought the traditional straight lrm's were NOT guided and required los and did 1 damage.

streaks were the "lockon" version

also mechs getting knocked down were always a big part of the game.-why not knock downs....matches are too quick - need more armour or less firepower.

Knock downs were taken out to be reworked.

[Kai Lui]

goood god they disabled collision for LRMs... there the same as tehy were before but now they don't hit stuff in there flight path anymore.... TRY IT get targed .. then go behind a building and watch almost all of them hit u THOUGH the building...
thats the mistake... they need to fix that.. we USED to beable to hide from 60 lauches... we can not do that well now.. we have to make the targeting fail... rather then just hiding and letting the flight path hit the building.

[Kai Lui]

yoshihiro Kurita, on 03 November 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

well I say go back to the drawing board game for answers to questions like this.

I mean I always thought the traditional straight lrm's were NOT guided and required los and did 1 damage.

streaks were the "lockon" version

also mechs getting knocked down were always a big part of the game.-why not knock downs....matches are too quick - need more armour or less firepower.

standered LRM's arched in table top game.. and u needed a spoter to help. Arrows are what your thinking of.... longer range betterr archs and tracking .. and grouped on tag targets. IE lower / mid / upper..
LRM's just kinda fell around the target.. and with Tag active less of them missed... yes tomeny LRM'***** targets it's not quite random enuph.

[Rainlyte]

I don't think they're super duper over powered, but considering the range, ability to hit over hills, and auto tracking, they really should be toned down IMO. They inflict an exorbitant amount of damage considering all the benefits they already have.

On a side note, though perhaps not relevant, rounds with lots of LRMs tend to be pretty unexciting.

Edited by Zo San, 03 November 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Deadoon]

Since there are no infantry/ lighter stuff to deal with in mwo, I'd say increase their accuracy and make their damage scaly with the srm properly.

I'll post this again from the another thread on the subject

They just need to fix the lrm damage to fit canon, not because of canon being a key point in this game(it isn't otherwise auto cannons would have dps derived from their number making choosing an ac/10 over an ac/5 be a no brainer) and put them down to 1 damage again.

Normal stats are as follows
100 srm ammo should deal 200 damage
180 lrm ammo should deal 180 damage or 90%

Currently the ammo amounts deal a total of 250 and 360 or 144% damage, meaning the missiles which need extra fuel, and actually have electronics on them are more powerful(relative to weight) and lighter per shot.

I'd want MRM(despite for the year mwo is in not being even thought of) for spam purposes, lrm for concentrated destruction, srm for, well, big boom low range.

For comparison, if srm were to be at comparable damage values for ammo weight, the srm would be dealing 4 damage per shot not 2.5. So to quickly re-balance them and fit better with damage values for missiles, Drop their damage down to 1.25 and see how well it works for 2 weeks to see how players change their play-style, not so much the community reaction.

[Volthorne]

Deadoon, on 03 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

They just need to fix the lrm damage to fit canon, not because of canon being a key point in this game(it isn't otherwise auto cannons would have dps derived from their number making choosing an ac/10 over an ac/5 be a no brainer) and put them down to 1 damage again.

And I want a golden sh*tter, but that's never going to happen. PGI played around extensively with LRM damage during Closed Beta. Anything less than the minimum acceptable 1.8 damage per missile makes LRMs not worth the weight of carrying around.

Edited by Volthorne, 03 November 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[Togg Bott]

LRM's are far from being OP. yes i run a LRM boat, and i am good with it. but as stated above, driving a LRM boat comes with a price, i'm slow, my armor is light, and i'm massively dependent on my team mates for support. that being said, if you come running/lumbering at me in your "I'm uber in my assualt" mech, i'm gonna feed you a steady diet of missles while backing away and calling for a direct fire mech to assist me.

It seems to me that your real problem isnt that your not good (lord knows how many times you've claimed to be uber) nor is it that direct fire weapons are underpowered. your problem stems from the idea that you dont need to do anything other than wade into the fray and kill everything. you flat out refuse to use the established tactics that have been proven counters to missles and instead of adopting them you come to the forums to whine that "YOUR" style of play should be pursued above all other styles.

yes i was in the Military as well, 24 years in the Marines, so that crap your spouting doesnt float with me. i will however agree with you that pug matches against pre-mades USUALLY ends badly for the pick-up group, so i'll be glad when pre-mades are matched against pre-mades and i dont have to listen to whinney little punks like you.

last thought, pre-mades dont win because of OP weapons, they win because of comms.

[Noth]

Togg Bott, on 04 November 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

LRM's are far from being OP. yes i run a LRM boat, and i am good with it. but as stated above, driving a LRM boat comes with a price, i'm slow, my armor is light, and i'm massively dependent on my team mates for support. that being said, if you come running/lumbering at me in your "I'm uber in my assualt" mech, i'm gonna feed you a steady diet of missles while backing away and calling for a direct fire mech to assist me.

It seems to me that your real problem isnt that your not good (lord knows how many times you've claimed to be uber) nor is it that direct fire weapons are underpowered. your problem stems from the idea that you dont need to do anything other than wade into the fray and kill everything. you flat out refuse to use the established tactics that have been proven counters to missles and instead of adopting them you come to the forums to whine that "YOUR" style of play should be pursued above all other styles.

yes i was in the Military as well, 24 years in the Marines, so that crap your spouting doesnt float with me. i will however agree with you that pug matches against pre-mades USUALLY ends badly for the pick-up group, so i'll be glad when pre-mades are matched against pre-mades and i dont have to listen to whinney little punks like you.

last thought, pre-mades dont win because of OP weapons, they win because of comms.

Here's the thing. With LRMs the way there currently are, they dictate the entire strategy of the game. You either play a certain way or die. There is no choice in tactics or strategy with the way LRMs are currently. This is a game, not real life. There should not be one tactic that can dictate the entire actions of the other team like LRMs currently do. If a weapon can dictate the entire flow of a game, a game meant to be competitive, then it is OP.

[Captain Wolfsburg]

Volthorne, on 02 November 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Were any of you actually around in early June when LRMs:

• Went over EVERYTHING
  
• Went through EVERYTHING that wasn't a Mech
  
• Did 1.4 damage
  
• Had a range of 640M

No? Let me tell you something: despite BOTH bugs that *should* have made them OP, you had to rain down MINIMUM 1000 missiles to actually kill something other than an Atlas (at the time, Atlas was taking 9001% more headshot damage than it currently is). Don't even f***ing complain about LRMS when you haven't been around long enough to properly judge the state of a weapon system.


In comparison, LRMs now:

• Collide with almost EVERYTHING they can at the first possible opportunity
  
• Have a launch angle that limits the *good* spots to set up an LRM boat
  
• Are the only weapon with a hard-counter that is non-environmental (AMS)
  
• Deal 2 damage
  
• Have a range of 1000M

Actually, I have been in the game that long.

The way LRMs were before is how they SHOULD be. People just aren't getting this, but LRMs are NOT kill weapons. They're fire support weapons. They do damage, soften armor, but rarely (and I mean RARELY) should get kills.

When this game was still in the discussion stage and role warfare was being tossed around, I assumed fire support would also be a role and EXP and C-bills would be awarded for offering support fire or covering fire for teammates using TAG, NARC, or just target spotting. Too many people missed this concept and seem to think that LRMs should be higher power to compete with other main weapons. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE AS PER TABLE-TOP STANDARDS!

If fire support were implemented properly into role warfare, we wouldn't need them to be OP because people who did their job properly by offering sufficient fire support and not worrying about bloody kills would be getting points for just that, while the brawlers and work-horses out there Did their bloody job correctly!

Missiles should be rewarding, but not just because they kill things, but because they assist the team.

This game is meant to be a total warfare experience, not a death-match (even though that's how the game mode is set up currently). PGI needs to focus more on role warfare and how to reward players and get their focus away from this ridiculous notion that kills are everything. They're not, and they won't be. In the end, victory will be available through more than just superior firepower.

Bottom line-

• Missiles are FIRE SUPPORT not KILL weapons and ARE OP as of right now.
  
• People need to focus on ROLE WARFARE and quit worrying about how many bloody kills they have!

[Death Knell]

I find it hilarious when some one tells me in game that I'm a noob for running LRM's. After they ran at me across an open field to get to me in their brawler Atlas. While my entire team was firing at them the entire game. And I'm the noob.

[Death Knell]

A5mod3us, on 04 November 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

• Missiles are FIRE SUPPORT not KILL weapons and ARE OP as of right now.

I hate when people say that. I'm fine with people having the opinion that a weapon is OP, people are entitled to their opinions. But saying that something is not a kill weapon? It does damage, it fires projectiles, how is it not a weapon meant to kill?

[Sulf]

Premades do dominate in that respect, However they tend to anyway. A minor damage decrease or spread increase might be in order, however for the most part lrms are possible to circumvent and require both a good gunner and a good spotter to really break them.

[Captain Wolfsburg]

Death Knell, on 04 November 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

I hate when people say that. I'm fine with people having the opinion that a weapon is OP, people are entitled to their opinions. But saying that something is not a kill weapon? It does damage, it fires projectiles, how is it not a weapon meant to kill?

It's just an expression. Yes, LRMs should be "capable" of killing, and as long as they have some kind of damage value, that will be the case. But boosting them so they are competitive with weapons like gauss rifles, LL, and AC20 is absolutely bull.

As I stated, they are fire support weapons. They're not supposed to do heavy damage.

Or did you just completely skim over my whole ROLE WARFARE argument? That figures. Might as well be selling my point to a bunch of wood posts.