121 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Well, I always thought that they improved LRMs to 2.0 because they doubled armor and they spread like the TT, so match them with the TT, they were moved from 1.5 to 2.0. The issue is that they never did spread like TT because they missed ~50% of the missiles in the TT.

So I suggest, make them spread MUCH wider, missing a lot. Then, let TAG focus on the location where it is aimed at, Artemis should make their spread back to what it is now (without the "dog leg" arcing issue, that just needs to be completely removed). NARC should just give visibility without LoS on the NARC'ed target for ~2 minutes.

[wanderer]

Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

I want them back to 1 damage. Along with srms back to 2. Every other weapon is TT value.

Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.

That being said, I'd have no problem with 1.6-1.8 damage/missile, especially since TAG/NARC/Artemis helps out there. I was quite happy with 1.8/missile, though 1.6 would put us dangerously near the point of "if this doesn't get boosted accuracy, the "base" version stinks."

[Mister Blastman]

LRMs need to be put @ 1.0.

[Viper69]

Orzorn, on 07 November 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

I think the reason 1 damage doesn't work as well in real time is the way spread and movement affect the damage of these weapons. 1 damage, along with doubled armor, doesn't go a very long way when spread across the entire mech. Back when LRMs were 650 meter, 1 damage-per-missile weapons, they were pretty lackluster.

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Nope 1 damage doesnt work because armor values were doubled. LRMs needs to do at least 1.7 damage each to still be effective with the doubling of armor.

Why isn't an LBX 10 2 damage per pellet? Yep 1 damage does work with the current lrm tracking. I am sorry I couldn't disagree with you two more.

[Wispsy]

I am all for making them this easy and doing less damage, or making them much harder(harder then prethis patch) and keeping damage the same. Having the easiest to use weapon be capable of idf and have the grearest returns for the least effort is just silly :/ sure better players can win consistently against them, but that is not really the issue and would never change no matter how you buffed or nerfed them (well unless you remove travel time). Average gameplay suffers greatly.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then they need to increase the DMG values for other weapons. My AC/20 should do 40 DMG, making it into an AC 40!

Other weapons dont spread out their damage like LRMs do though, so that argument doesnt hold up. The reason LRMs need increased damage is because they can't be aimed for specific locations and their damage is spread out evenly across the mech. Conversely, your AC/20 doesnt need increased damage because, unlike LRMs, it can be aimed at specific locations on the enemy mech. Although the AC/20 could use an ammo per ton increase because 7 ammo per ton still isnt enough.

Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[H Minus]

Scratx, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

No, because the problem is not the damage they inflict per hit.

Exactly, the first step to fixing this issue is to remove the artemis flat out.

[Cel]

Scratx, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

No, because the problem is not the damage they inflict per hit.

The problem IS the damage they inflict per hit, the trajectory is clearly a glitch that is only helping to show how fast LRM can kill mechs when they're meant to SUPPRESS. There will never be teamwork again if LRM boats don't need help to kill enemies.

Or did we already forget that LRM were SUPPOSED to be the "support"?

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

25% is too much of a nerf. When LRMs were at 1.6 damage they were largely considered useless. I think 1.7 or 1.8 is just about right for LRMs.

They were never useless at 1.6, the trajectory was bad back then but premades made LRM boats super useful as they always have.

Besides, LRM are not supposed to be doing the assaults, heavies or mediums job: Damage.

Edited by Cel, 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[Wispsy]

wanderer, on 07 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.

That being said, I'd have no problem with 1.6-1.8 damage/missile, especially since TAG/NARC/Artemis helps out there. I was quite happy with 1.8/missile, though 1.6 would put us dangerously near the point of "if this doesn't get boosted accuracy, the "base" version stinks."

Streaks cannot be fired at any other location then ct....just like artemis or tag lrms? At least half hit the torso even when you fire without either of these....unless your lrms are scarily more inaccurate then everybody elses.

[Purlana]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Other weapons dont spread out their damage like LRMs do though. So that argument doesnt hold up. The reason LRMs needed the damage boost is because their damage is so spread out.

Except missles now group tighter, so shouldn't they get a DMG reduction to adjust for this?

Edited by Purlana, 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Dagger6T6]

fix the flight path

[Valore]

Dont think any decision made without figuring out first whether its the LRMs being overpowered or the bug where people get instadeathed from crits is the problem.

[Viper69]

wanderer, on 07 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.
;

First off drop the QQ line it makes you look like an... Well i will leave that alone. Second, i would love my lbx to be two points a pop.

[hessian]

I am less interested in seeing numbers nerfed, and far more interested in seeing the usability and ease of LRMs significantly hindered. They shouldn't be useless, and that's all that will happen if this game devolves into monthly FOTM number shifting. When LRMs start raining down on you they should be a threat, but when all it takes is half a second of staring at someone's general direction through terrain and a mouse click there is simply something wrong. LRMs have always been toxic to entertaining gameplay (as pretty much all lock-on weapons are) the recent buff have only exacerbated the problem. Nerfing damage is a band-aid and it doesn't fix the underlying problem of the weapon system.

[Cel]

Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

First off drop the QQ line it makes you look like an... Well i will leave that alone. Second, i would love my lbx to be two points a pop.

I'd rather the LBX wasn't made of paper and blew up instantly like a gauss just because the armor "fell" off.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

LRMs are in a bad place now. Rather than softening targets or finding bare internals, they are raw kill weapons. LRMs should not be raw kill weapons. They should strip armor. They should exploit weaknesses. They should not be the single best kill weapon in the game.

Artemis IV is fine (assuming it does not work on indirect fire). The difference between recent patch iterations and earlier ones in the closed beta is primarily in the matters of range and spotting.

For a while, LRMs had a 650m range, which made them pretty useless. The 1km range change is huge, and a good one for balance (especially since all direct-fire weapons have much higher maximum ranges than the TT allows). With spotting being implemented as well, that means that long range indirect fire can be brought to bear against a target, which is exactly as it should be. The problem lies in the combination of those factors with a doubling of damage. No other weapon has such a huge change to damage output. SRMs have a minor boost, but that I suspect is largely to differentiate them damage-wise from LRMs (though used to do twice the damage per missile, now they just do +.5 per missile).

IMO, keep the range, as well as the launch angle (the immediate arc effect is great). Change the end of the flight path from a super sharp vector change into a smooth curve (basically, follow the launch arc all the way to the terminal impact). This makes cover super important, and prevents the concentration of damage to the head area of mechs. Then, reduce damage on LRMs to 1.5 per missile, increase ammo per ton a bit, and make NARC provide target data regardless of LOS. Make TAG and Artemis IV both tighten the grouping of inbound missiles, but have TAG work for all missiles launched at the lit target and A4 only work for direct fire from the mech using Artemis-enhanced launchers.

[Cel]

hessian, on 07 November 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I am less interested in seeing numbers nerfed, and far more interested in seeing the usability and ease of LRMs significantly hindered. They shouldn't be useless, and that's all that will happen if this game devolves into monthly FOTM number shifting. When LRMs start raining down on you they should be a threat, but when all it takes is half a second of staring at someone's general direction through terrain and a mouse click there is simply something wrong. LRMs have always been toxic to entertaining gameplay (as pretty much all lock-on weapons are) the recent buff have only exacerbated the problem. Nerfing damage is a band-aid and it doesn't fix the underlying problem of the weapon system.

Except most of us are already talking from experience, not theory. We played when LRM were 1.0, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0. I Liked it when it was 1.6, I felt the difference on 1.8 and you already know wtf is going on with 2.0.

[StoneGuardian]

Orzorn, on 07 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I'd argue to return the flight path to how it was before (with or WITHOUT artemis. It should not adjust the flight path).

Additionally, artemis is not supposed to work with indirect fire. Fix that.

So now the tighter clusters only work with direct fire and they hit the torso more than the head.

We can go from there. However, I think a reduction to 1.8 damage per missile would be a step in the right direction, considering what TAG-locked missiles are capable of (insane damage to a single point).

This, all of it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Other weapons dont spread out their damage like LRMs do though, so that argument doesnt hold up. The reason LRMs need increased damage is because they can't be aimed for specific locations and their damage is spread out evenly across the mech. Conversely, your AC/20 doesnt need increased damage because, unlike LRMs, can be aimed at specific locations on the enemy mech.

LRMs did spread their damage and did miss in the table top as well. Yet they dealt 1 damage per missile there.
You may notice, however, that an LRM20 has a much higher range than an AC/20, but yet weighs less and needs less space. ANd it had more ammo per ton as well (5 per ton for the AC/20, 6 shots - 6 x 20 missiles - per ton for the LRM20)

Ever considered that maybe they did balance the LRM20s taking their range advantage and their spreading behaviour into account?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 November 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Except missles now group tighter, so shouldn't they get a DMG reduction to adjust for this?

They group tighter but they still dont all hit the same location.

And yes the general consensus is that LRMs need a damage reduction. I would say reduce the damage from 2 per missile to 1.7 or 1.8 per missile. Because a few patches ago when LRMs were 1.6 per missile they were widely regarded as useless.

Quote

LRMs did spread their damage and did miss in the table top as well. Yet they dealt 1 damage per missile there.

LRMs were also one of the worst weapons in tabletop. Direct fire weapons like gauss, ppcs, and medium lasers were much more powerful to spam than LRMs. If LRMs were the same in MWO as they were in tabletop they would be so blatantly underpowered nobody would ever use them. LRMs absolutely needed a buff from tabletop stats, they just went a little overboard with it... LRMs do need a 10%-15% damage nerf, but they dont need to be completely castrated by only doing 1 damage per missile.

Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2012 - 09:08 AM.