121 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

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.

That just sounds like a reason to buff the LB 10-X to me!

[Hubis]

I'd rather leave their damage higher and loosen their grouping, otherwise LRMs lose some distinctiveness from other types of weapons.

Another thing -- it's going to be really hard to know how to balance LRMs until ECM comes in. I think they need to be adjusted, but I'm not sure exactly how until we know the rest of the systems that affect it. Likewise, they've talked about major changes to NARC coming down the line (thank god).

[hessian]

Cel, on 07 November 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

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.

I guess I don't understand your point? Experience? Theory? I never liked how LRMs played and have always thought they were simply too mindless for a game like this.

[Tuhalu]

All previous changes of the damage value of LRMs (and SRMs!) were based on the current equipment available. Pre-ECM, LRMs should certainly be nerfed (whether that means just damage or the power of Artemis IV or whatever). Post-ECM, the interactions of ECM, Artemis IV, TAG, NARC and LRMs should be intensely evaluated and brought to a good balance.

[Viper69]

Tuhalu, on 07 November 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

All previous changes of the damage value of LRMs (and SRMs!) were based on the current equipment available. Pre-ECM, LRMs should certainly be nerfed (whether that means just damage or the power of Artemis IV or whatever). Post-ECM, the interactions of ECM, Artemis IV, TAG, NARC and LRMs should be intensely evaluated and brought to a good balance.

Wish i could have made my point this eloquently.

Edited by Viper69, 07 November 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Havyek]

Purlana, on 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

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

Missiles don't group tighter. Missiles equipped with Artemis IV FCS group tighter.

LRMs shouldn't be nerfed to a point that Artemis IV is a REQUIREMENT to make them useful.

[Psykosis]

...im wondering why they're bothering to "balance" a feature incomplete weaponset? Isnt that kindof a waste of time? How about waiting until all weapon systems/features are in and THEN balance things out??


....unless the employees working on these things have nothing better to do.

[Jacmac]

Add "Nerf damage by 50%" and I'll vote for that.

[Cel]

hessian, on 07 November 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

I guess I don't understand your point? Experience? Theory? I never liked how LRMs played and have always thought they were simply too mindless for a game like this.

They definitely are mindless. What I was saying is that we are mentioning different damage numbers because PGI has already tested all those numbers in previous patches, the testing has been done. All we know is that 2.0 is too much, Some say 1.8 is good and I say 1.6 damage is good ... while others insist they want more damage, because they don't understand what LRM's role is supposed to be.

[Khobai]

Quote

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.

I will explain why the damage was upped to 2.0

A few patches ago, the cooldown on LRM10s, 15s, and 20s was increased so to compensate for the increased cooldown they also increased the damage to 2.0 per missile. So this kept LRM dps about the same... which was fine until the introduction of TAG and Artemis.

So to rebalance LRMs we just need to revert their damage back to 1.7 or 1.8

[Marzepans]

Let's wait until we see what ECM is capable of first.

[Cel]

Psykosis, on 07 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

...im wondering why they're bothering to "balance" a feature incomplete weaponset? Isnt that kindof a waste of time? How about waiting until all weapon systems/features are in and THEN balance things out??


....unless the employees working on these things have nothing better to do.

That's not how you do ANYTHING in this world.

You don't move into a new house and unpack all your boxes and lay it on the floor so you can organize EVERYTHING at the same time.

You don't put your entire lunch in your mouth THEN begin to chew. (save the jokes)

You certainly don't leave all your projects for the last day before class.

[wanderer]

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

Or did we already forget that LRM were SUPPOSED to be the "support"?
Besides, LRM are not supposed to be doing the assaults, heavies or mediums job: Damage.

Let's give you a little lesson on how LRMs actually worked from the 1980's on.

LRM 5's damage like a small laser (average 3 damage/hit). 10's like an MPL (avg 6), 15's like the MWO LPL (9), 20's right between a PPC and a Gauss (12). The difference? They spread their damage across the target in clusters of 5 damage apiece (plus any fraction). The bigger launchers were quite capable of killing people. I should know- I did it for decades. In truth, they fell right in the spot between crit-seekers (SRMs, LB-X pellets) and "big guns" (LL/PPC/Gauss/heavier AC's). Artemis and other boosters made this even better- an Artemis-equipped LRM 20 was often able to club people harder than a Gauss hit did (though again, less focus).

They were hardly simply "support" weapons. Not quite as good at tearing big chunks out of single points like a big gun, but more than capable of blasting away bites- and although they took a little longer to get through, they also had the better odds of multiple chances for a crit once you did. There's plenty of 'Mechs from 3025 onwards that used LRMs as killing weapons, from the iconic Archer through later monsters like the triple-20 Salamander assault 'Mech. An LRM user delivered as hard a hit as anything else did for the tonnage- just slightly more spread than "big guns". Your PPC user might get through armor in 3 hits, while the LRM user did it in 4-5- but then had twice the chance to critical hit the 'Mech to death than the PPC guy did. The limitation was in needing more ammo to do the killing job, but they killed fine.

It was one of my favorite things to demonstrate to people who thought in Mechforce tournaments that LRMs weren't made to break 'Mechs effectively with. You want support? Get some mortars or an Arrow IV launcher, or a bunch of AC/2's you can try to dink people with. LRMs are an effective weapon whose big advantage is they CAN support- but were more than able to do the job themselves without help.

Edited by wanderer, 07 November 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[hessian]

Cel, on 07 November 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

They definitely are mindless. What I was saying is that we are mentioning different damage numbers because PGI has already tested all those numbers in previous patches, the testing has been done. All we know is that 2.0 is too much, Some say 1.8 is good and I say 1.6 damage is good ... while others insist they want more damage, because they don't understand what LRM's role is supposed to be.

Ah. I think the problem isn't the damage though, and can be fixed through other means. Changing map design, adding in multiple victory goals that are spaced far enough apart that a single group of LRM boats cannot successfully cover all of them, adding a active counter to the missiles like a player controlled AMS because only passive systems are incredibly boring, and/or changing lock-on mechanics all seem like superior changes too me. When you just fiddle with numbers, you simply hide the underlying problems which is true with pretty much all the weapons in the game. That said, there probably is some magic number that makes make LRMs "balanced", but I think just nerfing numbers is less fun as opposed to more specialized counters that could potentially result in deeper gameplay and tactics.

Edit: The problem with the current "counters" are that they are either passive equipment or severely hamper any tactical or offensive gameplay. As it stands, once LRMs start to fly at you the only options are to hide or die. Any attempt to move forward or flank requires you to enter open ground and thus be targeted by a lock-on weapon that doesn't require line of sight to use. Pretty much all you can do at that point is "pop-tart snipe" which is absolutely boring. These are flaws that come from the current map designs, the single point objectives that are easily covered from all angles by LRMs, and the ease of use of the weapon system. Just nerfing damage doesn't change these problems, instead it either forces them into uselessness by being ignorable or it simply requires more spamming of them for the same effect.

Edited by hessian, 07 November 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[Kyone Akashi]

BDU Havoc, on 07 November 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

LRMs shouldn't be nerfed to a point that Artemis IV is a REQUIREMENT to make them useful.

LRMs should not be buffed to a point where AMS and ECM are a requirement to survive them either. And I have seen a number of LRM supporters recommend just that when faced with criticism regarding current missile performance.

It appears the community lacks consensus on whether LRMs should be a support weapon, or whether they should be true "mech killers". A large number of players have commented on the recent damage buff being too much already over the past weeks, and whilst the last patch's introduction of a missile warning may help the less armoured 'mechs in allowing better evasion, Artemis now added even more destructive capability on top of that.

I have a feeling ECM has not been implemented yet specifically because the developers wish to balance Artemis against normal opponents (with or without AMS) rather than allowing the Guardian suite to "skew reception" amongst the playerbase.

[Scryed]

Sybreed, on 07 November 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

^^ Title.

In response to the many complains that LRMs are OP, what do you think would fix them?

Would a nerf of 25% of their damage fix LRMs in their current form?

Keep in mind that once ECM is in, we might stop thinking LRMs are OP.

No all they need to do is revert back to the way lrms functioned in the previous patch, and they need to bring back screen shake as well, all artemis should do is reduce time to get lock and tighten up the spread.

[Khobai]

This is what Id like to see done:

1) Nerf LRM damage back to 1.7 or 1.8, which wasnt considered overpowered by anyone during those patches.
2) ECM should have no effect on LRMs other than cancelling out TAG/NARC/Artemis, just like it does in tabletop
3) Give AMS a slight buff against LRM15s and LRM20s

[Bartolomeo]

i think damage is fine... but they really need to make lrm blockable by cover... in this patch only skyscrapers can block lrm...

[Cel]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

This is what Id like to see done:

1) Nerf LRM damage back to 1.7 or 1.8, which wasnt considered overpowered by anyone during those patches.
2) ECM should have no effect on LRMs other than cancelling out TAG/NARC/Artemis, just like it does in tabletop
3) Give AMS a slight buff against LRM15s and LRM20s

This.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

This is what Id like to see done:

1) Nerf LRM damage back to 1.7 or 1.8, which wasnt considered overpowered by anyone during those patches.
2) ECM should have no effect on LRMs other than cancelling out TAG/NARC/Artemis, just like it does in tabletop
3) Give AMS a slight buff against LRM15s and LRM20s

Yep. Common sense balancing here, though I'm more for allowing people to mount AMS in ballistic slots. Twin AMS is already quite effective vs. LRM 15/20 shots and a potent shield vs. smaller ones.