73 replies to this topic

[Wispsy]

Lefty Lucy, on 05 November 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.

I really liked how games progressed pre-buff, i still love this game but it is less fun now 70% are totally missile focused.

[Aurien Titus]

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.

Maybe before you tell us how things were in TT you should open a book and look at the rules. It required line of sight on the enemy unit from a friendly unit and added a +1 modifier to the attack roll needed. Real difficult task there hugh?

I always see people talk about how LRM's aren't like TT, but no mention of how AMS isn't like TT. Sure, let's roll LRM's back to 1 damage per missile if we roll AMS back as well. 1-6 missiles shot down per salvo, 12 shots per ton, and no firing at missiles not inbound to you.

[Davers]

@Kraven Kor- SRMs do 2.5 damage to LRMs 2.

Pre change most competitive teams disregarded LRM builds as viable. In the RHOD tournament all LRM teams were eliminated I believe. Even now post damage boost/TAG/NARC there are still many people who think anyone who dies to LRM fire needs to 'l2p'.

I think a lot of LRM deaths are due to holding/defending bad positions or 'Charge of the Light Brigade' tactics when confronted by multiple LRM boats. ("If we just run REALLY FAST we'll get them!")

If anyone is being hit by LRMs from 1000m, then you kill the spotter. If there is no spotter, why aren't you sending gauss downrange to the exposed boat looking at you?

If you see the LRM boats all lined up waiting for you, it's time to reposition and try advancing from a different direction.

[Noth]

Aurien Titus, on 05 November 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe before you tell us how things were in TT you should open a book and look at the rules. It required line of sight on the enemy unit from a friendly unit and added a +1 modifier to the attack roll needed. Real difficult task there hugh?

I always see people talk about how LRM's aren't like TT, but no mention of how AMS isn't like TT. Sure, let's roll LRM's back to 1 damage per missile if we roll AMS back as well. 1-6 missiles shot down per salvo, 12 shots per ton, and no firing at missiles not inbound to you.

I'm lucky if my AMS shoots down 4 missiles. It's usually only 2 or 3.

[RAM]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

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.

Actually it is very relevant – I am quite happy to spread the damage around my entire mech rather than clustered on my CT.

Well, you think wrong. IF there were an SRM15, I would be totally fine with that – because the weapon exists and as above spread damage is better than clustered damage.


RAM
ELH

[Noth]

Davers, on 05 November 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

@Kraven Kor- SRMs do 2.5 damage to LRMs 2.

Pre change most competitive teams disregarded LRM builds as viable. In the RHOD tournament all LRM teams were eliminated I believe. Even now post damage boost/TAG/NARC there are still many people who think anyone who dies to LRM fire needs to 'l2p'.

I think a lot of LRM deaths are due to holding/defending bad positions or 'Charge of the Light Brigade' tactics when confronted by multiple LRM boats. ("If we just run REALLY FAST we'll get them!")

If anyone is being hit by LRMs from 1000m, then you kill the spotter. If there is no spotter, why aren't you sending gauss downrange to the exposed boat looking at you?

If you see the LRM boats all lined up waiting for you, it's time to reposition and try advancing from a different direction.

OF course LRM heavy teams would go out quick, they were meant to be fire support weapons, not carry the entire team like they do now. Guass at 1000m+ doe pathetic damage and any discipline LRM group should have no problem dealing with it while keeping the rest of your group pinned. Your only real options are everyone have AMS and staying grouped or advancing by cover only. Hardly engaging or varied combat.

Edited by Noth, 05 November 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[Slanski]

Currently IDF with LRMs essentially mirrors C3 capability from the board game without needing to carry the infrastructure on the mechs. With coordinated lances working against eachother it's strong and versatile, but can be countered through a disciplined advance under cover of terrain and snipers. Versus PUGs it is brutally overpowered and lowers new player enjoyment as well as steepening the learning curve.

[RAM]

AC, on 05 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

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

IDF is often banned at tournaments because it is powerful and when available players do build forces around it. By the rules, your Atlas would probably be a better spotter than the Jenner…

I am not opposed to requiring the tech, but that is another needless deviation from the rules. Nevertheless, light mechs do not need artificial roles – they are quite good as it is.


RAM
ELH

[Noth]

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Actually it is very relevant – I am quite happy to spread the damage around my entire mech rather than clustered on my CT.

Well, you think wrong. IF there were an SRM15, I would be totally fine with that – because the weapon exists and as above spread damage is better than clustered damage.


RAM
ELH

You do realize it is typically constant damage though right? It's not like a laser where you can twist and reduce the damage quickly and easily. An LRM 5 constantly firing will melt you with indirect fire no matter how spread the damage is because of the shear amount of it. Even LRM 20s have an overwhelming amount of damage in them and can be fire pretty fast. LRMs are the highest dps weapons in the game, with the least risk involved and are the easiest to hit with. Just because they exist as they are does not mean they are balanced or good for the game.

[Lefty Lucy]

Aurien Titus, on 05 November 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe before you tell us how things were in TT you should open a book and look at the rules. It required line of sight on the enemy unit from a friendly unit and added a +1 modifier to the attack roll needed. Real difficult task there hugh?

I always see people talk about how LRM's aren't like TT, but no mention of how AMS isn't like TT. Sure, let's roll LRM's back to 1 damage per missile if we roll AMS back as well. 1-6 missiles shot down per salvo, 12 shots per ton, and no firing at missiles not inbound to you.

A friendly with LoS. You add +1 for indirect fire. +1 more if the spotter fires (this is added to the spotter's shooting as well). Then you add the spotters AMM as well as your own AMM and TMM. Discounting the fact that +1 is a significant mod at the top end of the 2d6 bell curve, all these penalties make IDF significantly more difficult. I can get you specific page numbers if you want, but I believe page 111 of total warfare covers it.

[Dagnome]

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.

This seems like another MWO comparison to Tabletop..... pointless. I applaud your love for tabletop but lets be real about it, MWO used TT as a referance and no where did I read that "Mech warrior online will be the tabletop game with 3D graphics".

Edited by Dagnome, 05 November 2012 - 03:27 PM.

[SteelPaladin]

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

OF course LRM heavy teams would go out quick, they were meant to be fire support weapons, not carry the entire team like they do now. Guass at 1000m+ doe pathetic damage and any discipline LRM group should have no problem dealing with while keeping the rest of your group pinned. Your only real options are everyone have AMS and staying grouped or advancing by cover only. Hardly engaging or varied combat.

For reference, a GR at 1000m does ~11 damage (it's actually a little over 11).

Edited by SteelPaladin, 05 November 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[Kobold]

RAM, on 05 November 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

By the rules, your Atlas would probably be a better spotter than the Jenner…

Well if we're being nit picky, I'd rather use a few squads of disposable jump infantry hiding in some woods or buildings. Or maybe just a couple cheap Sprint VTOLs that never engage in combat. (If you are a regular at the Catalyst CBT boards, you may be familiar with a poster by the name of "Lyran Archer" who regularly talks about his IDF Archer lance supported by Sprints)

The problem with translating LRMs from TT to real time is that the lock on system they use (and for that matter, that streaks use) is very problematic. The removal of dice rolling for attacks already devalues range increments (so firing a medium laser at 270m is no harder than firing a large at 270m). Some weapons that SHOULD be good at range are further hurt by their projectile nature (PPCs, poor poor PPCs...).

Meanwhile the LRMs don't have to aim at all, since the guidance does all the work for them. By their very nature they are an outlier to the system and will be wonky for balancing purposes.

[Khobai]

LRMs at 1000m should do 0 damage though, because you should be able to see them coming and have plenty of time to break lock and get behind cover. I know when I see LRMs coming at me I dont just stand there... maybe the rest of you do?

In fact when I play my LRM boat I often have to close to about 600m or less to cut down the travel time on my missiles so they cant be dodged.

[Kobold]

Dagnome, on 05 November 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

This seems like another MWO comparison to Tabletop..... pointless. I applaud your love for tabletop but lets be real about it, MWO used TT as a referance and no where did I read that "Mech warrior online will be the tabletop game with 3D graphics".

You ignored the content of his post. His point: IDF shouldn't be as easy as it is.

[Noth]

Khobai, on 05 November 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

LRMs at 1000m should do 0 damage though, because you should be able to see them coming and have plenty of time to break lock and get behind cover. I know when I see LRMs coming at me I dont just stand there... maybe the rest of you do?

In fact when I play my LRM boat I often have to close to about 600m or less to cut down the travel time on my missiles so they cant be dodged.

They do full damage even beyond 1000m. I regularly damage mechs that end up over 1000m away with LRMs. Farthest I've seen so far is 1100m. It was a kill as well.

[Pataine]

Someone stated earlier that only a Mech with Narc or C3 should be allowed to do a lock on for LRM's and I agree. That way not every single person in the team can. Yes Ecm will counter them, once it's out, but ya gotta pay tonnage and cbills for it. Not every single missle from a LRM pack should hit either. Cover should also defeat some of it. So if you are behind a butte after they are fired some, maybe, should hit.

[Braxxal]

Lets just nerf any thing that can kill you.

If you kill the spotting mech problem solved

[Shalune]

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 has been my thinking. I'd like to see LRMs be less accurate, even with direct fire. Instead leave the accuracy buffing to TAG, Artemis and NARC (and please let NARC keep a target visible, though possibly for less time.)

[Noth]

Braxxal, on 05 November 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Lets just nerf any thing that can kill you.

If you kill the spotting mech problem solved

Spoken like someone who has not read anything on the subject.