73 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

... is that it is fundamentally as effective as direct fire.

TT Battletech keeps indirect fire from becoming dominant by making it a somewhat difficult task. Since you really can't do it reliably, it is not a primary tactic, but rather one that gives versatility to LRM boats, rather than raw power.

Currently in MWO, indirect fire offers pretty much the same capability as direct fire, only without requiring anything more than a spotting mech.

Now, of course when a mech gets focus fired by an entire team it *should* die pretty quickly. The reason why it is a problem with indirect fire is that the LRM team does not need to expose itself to enemy fire, nor does it need to worry about economy of space and maximum usage of cover, as a team focusing with direct fire does.

This is why mass-targeting with IDF is more powerful than mass-targeting with DF weapons.

IMO LRMs should hit significantly less when firing indirect, for both balance reasons and fidelity to the TT mechanic of indirect fire being less effective than direct fire.

Edited by Lefty Lucy, 05 November 2012 - 02:11 PM.

[RAM]

IDF testing during the CBT showed greater missile spread than direct fire which is fairly accurate to the rules. Otherwise aside from the damage & range buffs, IDF works exactly like the rules.


RAM
ELH

[Noth]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

... is that it is fundamentally as effective as direct fire.

TT Battletech keeps indirect fire from becoming dominant by making it a somewhat difficult task. Since you really can't do it reliably, it is not a primary tactic, but rather one that gives versatility to LRM boats, rather than raw power.

Currently in MWO, indirect fire offers pretty much the same capability as direct fire, only without requiring anything more than a spotting mech.

Now, of course when a mech gets focus fired by an entire team it *should* die pretty quickly. The reason why it is a problem with indirect fire is that the LRM team does not need to expose itself to enemy fire, nor does it need to worry about economy of space and maximum usage of cover, as a team focusing with direct fire does.

This is why mass-targeting with IDF is more powerful than mass-targeting with DF weapons.

IMO LRMs should hit significantly less when firing indirect, for both balance reasons and fidelity to the TT mechanic of indirect fire being less effective than direct fire.

There was an idea about this in one of the LRM threads. It was to give LRM essentially 2 fire modes. Indirect and direct. Indirect fire would work like now, just with a much larger spread, thus increasing the area of effect but dropping the potential damage to any one target. Direct fire would require line of sight and have the current spread. TAG and NARC would tighten the spread of both indirect and direct fire modes.

This would even add more use to the LRMs as in indirect fire mode you could potentiall spread the damage out on a bunch of mech softening up multiple targets.

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

IDF testing during the CBT showed greater missile spread than direct fire which is fairly accurate to the rules. Otherwise aside from the damage & range buffs, IDF works exactly like the rules.


RAM
ELH

If that is the case the spread is not increased much at all seeing as every missile will still hit you with indirect fire when you are standing still.

Edited by Noth, 05 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Z0MBIE Y0SHI]

...maybe make so if your firing LRM's without LoS yourself your LRM's suffer from an accuracy debuff?

Just throwing idea's out there, something's gotta give on LRM's.

[Khobai]

The majority of LRMs are direct fired. Indirect fire isnt really the problem. In fact I would argue that indirect fire needs a buff as LRMs are currently terrible at clearing terrain. This is whatI feel needs to happen with LRMs:

1) increase LRM rate of ascent so they clear terrain better
2) decrease LRM damage to 1.8 per missile

[RAM]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

If that is the case the spread is not increased much at all seeing as every missile will still hit you with indirect fire when you are standing still.

It is not merely how many hit – it is also where they hit you.


RAM
ELH

[Noth]

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

It is not merely how many hit – it is also where they hit you.


RAM
ELH

Witch is a moot point seeing as they still hit you. You still take full damage from the volley. Would you be ok if the SRM shot 15 missiles just because they hit all different parts of your mech? I don't think you would, and I don't think the devs would. No imagine it doing that from 1000 meters away without needing to even have LOS of you.

[Kobold]

Khobai, on 05 November 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

2) decrease LRM damage to 1.8 per missile

This goes back to something I've been asking for a month now:

Why did the damage on LRMs get increased from 1.6 to 2.0 per missile?

I am fairly certain no one thought LRMs were significantly underpowered at the previous setting, yet now we see many people who think they are overpowered at the new setting.

[Noth]

Kobold, on 05 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

This goes back to something I've been asking for a month now:

Why did the damage on LRMs get increased from 1.6 to 2.0 per missile?

I am fairly certain no one thought LRMs were significantly underpowered at the previous setting, yet now we see many people who think they are overpowered at the new setting.

There was a large outcry from people who wanted to only use LRMs. SO they got a damage buff to 1.8, a tighter spread. Cries about worthless LRMs were at an all time low and very few "LRMs are OP" threads cropt up compared to now. I might add that at this time it fit almost perfectly with the dev idea that if two sides were complaining equally about something it is more than likely balanced. Then they got buffed to 2.0 while also gain TAG and NARC. No explanation what so ever from the devs for the unwarranted buff to damage.

Edited by Noth, 05 November 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

I think Indirect fire here for LRMs is kinda wrong as even with indirect fire the LRMs lock on and track the target being fired by IDF. I think for true IDF with a spotter mech the firing should go to the target but not track so the faster the mech the less damage they take. Make the guidance on IDF only happen with NARC or TAG assist it would make TAGing or NARCing a target much more important to these LRM boats who as of right now truthfully don't need it to LRM spam an enemy to death

[AC]

in TT, indirect fire was not a primary tactic. in MWO, it is some premades ONLY tactic. I think that instead of letting anyone spot for indirect fire, a TAG laser or Narc should be required. It would give the light mechs a more significant role. Right now I can use my atlas to spot as effectively as a jenner, and there is something not quite battletech about that. IMO

[Kraven Kor]

Kobold, on 05 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

This goes back to something I've been asking for a month now:

Why did the damage on LRMs get increased from 1.6 to 2.0 per missile?

I am fairly certain no one thought LRMs were significantly underpowered at the previous setting, yet now we see many people who think they are overpowered at the new setting.

Actually, prior to the change to 2.0 damage, most "organized teams" had almost stopped using LRM's. Between cover, and converging AMS, LRM's were seen as woefully underpowered by most. Only massed LRM's were effective.

I still think LRM's doing the same damage as SRM's is just plain wrong. But I feel LRM's are going to be a tricky beast to balance.

What we aren't seeing is the data they are collecting. We don't even know whether LRM damage is being tracked correctly right now (in relation to end-of-round stats.)

[Skyfaller]

Z0MBIE Y0SHI, on 05 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

...maybe make so if your firing LRM's without LoS yourself your LRM's suffer from an accuracy debuff?

Just throwing idea's out there, something's gotta give on LRM's.

This will change when ECM is in the game. ECM breaks or prevents locks, making LRM boats mostly neutered unless the target is TAG'd or NARC'd.

[Noth]

Skyfaller, on 05 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

This will change when ECM is in the game. ECM breaks or prevents locks, making LRM boats mostly neutered unless the target is TAG'd or NARC'd.

Actually , ECM should also negate TAG and NARC

Kraven Kor, on 05 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Actually, prior to the change to 2.0 damage, most "organized teams" had almost stopped using LRM's. Between cover, and converging AMS, LRM's were seen as woefully underpowered by most. Only massed LRM's were effective.

I still think LRM's doing the same damage as SRM's is just plain wrong. But I feel LRM's are going to be a tricky beast to balance.

What we aren't seeing is the data they are collecting. We don't even know whether LRM damage is being tracked correctly right now (in relation to end-of-round stats.)

The LRMs did not need both a damage increase and TAG and NARC. Only one would had sufficed.

[Wispsy]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

There was a large outcry from people who wanted to only use LRMs. SO they got a damage buff to 1.8, a tighter spread. Cries about worthless LRMs were at an all time low and very few "LRMs are OP" threads cropt up compared to now. I might add that at this time it fit almost perfectly with the dev idea that if two sides were complaining equally about something it is more than likely balanced. Then they got buffed to 2.0 while also gain TAG and NARC. No explanation what so ever from the devs for the unwarranted buff to damage.

Actually I saw numerous times where people used LRMs effectively and consistently did very well....it just took a little more thought and effort? Now need for thought and effort have been removed to make them more popular because people on the forums prefer missile focused average gameplay.

[Noth]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Actually I saw numerous times where people used LRMs effectively and consistently did very well....it just took a little more thought and effort? Now need for thought and effort have been removed to make them more popular because people on the forums prefer missile focused average gameplay.

Oh I agree, even at 1.6 with wider spreads, LRMs were still topping damage and kill charts, you just had to do more than LRM spam.

[Lefty Lucy]

Wispsy, on 05 November 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

Actually I saw numerous times where people used LRMs effectively and consistently did very well....it just took a little more thought and effort? Now need for thought and effort have been removed to make them more popular because people on the forums prefer missile focused average gameplay.

My experience with group play previous to the LRM buff was that having a small dedicated LRM team was very advantageous because they can switch targets more effectively with IDF than the guys down in the brawl can. Since having a lot of brawlers in the same spot means they just get physically in the way of each other, the value of IDF was not overwhelming, but definitely an asset to consider. IMO it was about perfect.

[SteelPaladin]

Skyfaller, on 05 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

This will change when ECM is in the game. ECM breaks or prevents locks, making LRM boats mostly neutered unless the target is TAG'd or NARC'd.

They seem to be going for a "perfectly imbalanced" structure. They talk about how ECM is the go to for stopping LRM rain, how they will be adding things to mess w/gauss snipers... It seems like they want to build it so a prebuilt team will have a bit of ECM to stop the rain, some anti-gauss measures, etc, which then makes those mechs priority targets because things get really ugly if your defensive abilities go away. Rock, paper, scissors. The only problem is, how do you keep it from degrading into an ugly mess when the majority of your players will be random drop PUGs?

[Tennex]

the spread currently covers the size of atlas. not really a AoE weapon as it stands

[DivideByZer0]

LRM are just too maneuverable. Reduce their maneuverability, so that a moving mech experiences fewer hits (especially one moving perpendicular to the mech firing the LRM) . This would have the overall effect of reducing LRM damage capacity against faster/smaller mechs. Currently there is some of this effect , but it only really benefits fast light mechs currently, I feel. This would also still make sure that stationary mechs (boaters ) are discouraged from camping one spot.