769 replies to this topic

[Fetladral]

Artemis is essentially TAG for the firer and is technically supposed to work only with LoS. No idea if that bit is possible or not.

[Merrik Starchaser]

Stormgut, on 08 November 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

The LRMs are a support weapon, not a primary weapon.

They weigh as much, generate heat, require ammo and take up many slots.

just because they are a long range indirect fire weapon does not make them support or any less primary than an AC/20.

what you have is YOUR OPINION on the role you think LRM's should play. it is NOT in accordance with the way LRMS were balanced in TT.

[Long Draw]

Merrik Starchaser, on 08 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

They weigh as much, generate heat, require ammo and take up many slots.

just because they are a long range indirect fire weapon does not make them support or any less primary than an AC/20.

what you have is YOUR OPINION on the role you think LRM's should play. it is NOT in accordance with the way LRMS were balanced in TT.

Thank you Merrik! I couldn't have put it any better!

[Tokra]

1-2 Gausspults are better than 8x LRM boats....

And yes, i noticed as well at least one gausspult in each match. Thx god. They are so damm easy to kill (and this is not sarcasm).

[WarMonkey14]

Merrik Starchaser, on 08 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

They weigh as much, generate heat, require ammo and take up many slots.

just because they are a long range indirect fire weapon does not make them support or any less primary than an AC/20.

what you have is YOUR OPINION on the role you think LRM's should play. it is NOT in accordance with the way LRMS were balanced in TT.

well then why the **** should a weapon that does not require careful aim or line of sight be allowed to do the same damage as an ac20, which does require both as well as gets less ammo per ton and weighs way more in tonnage.

so yes it is our opinion, but seriously our opinion makes sense in terms of balance. LRMs not being a support weapon and comparing them in the same category as an AC-20 is ridiculous. if you played battletech, you should feel ashamed of such a statement. I'm ashamed i found it on this forum. Just my opinion

[Fooooo]

So how exactly are you finding out how many missiles miss ?

You guessing from what you see ? There is no number indicator that tells you the amount of missiles that hit, and lag etc can play a role here......even on a stationary target, maybe on your screen you are seeing all hits, but really some missed etc.......unless of course your using 1 LRM5........then its probably doable if you repeated it many many times

Also the streams and the way the missiles move is probably not identical per client.

They have the same settings on all clients but they wont all be mirror copies once fired because of the random movement etc......and that getting the server to do all that so everyone DID see the same thing happen would most likely cause lag.......I could be wrong on this last bit tho......so take that with a grain of salt.

Edited by Fooooo, 08 November 2012 - 10:52 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

The static % is not important. It's the delta, the change from before 45 missiles hit to after 45 missiles. On Atlas chassis the average for 1 salvo is 2% and 2 salvo's is 5%. so it's somewhere around 2.5% per hit. Either way if it's just the armor, or the armor and IS.. then the missiles are either hitting less than 45%/28% at 1.4 damage per against a stationary Atlas, or they are doing either 1 or .7 damage at an average 60% hit rate. So if the hit rate is only 45%/28% or an average of 60% hit rate WITH Artemis and TAG and NO AMS, then what exactly is TAG/Artemis supposed to be doing?

[t 6]

The LRMs are good enough now. Pilots just have to get used to them being a support weapon now. For instance I encountered several games like this:
Forrest. Teams were balanced. Some LRM boats in each team, some scouts etc. A huge brawl started at the usual place, somewhere around the canyon. What tipped the scales in our favor were our LRM boats roughing up the opponents heavies/assaults or harassing strays so they would turn away. This brawl took quite a time nevertheless and was challenging aka "fun".
After that our 2 remaining offense mechs (dripping blood and spittle from their jaws) went to work on the opposing LRM boats, who literally stood with their d**** in hand in the river, trying to hide behind the rocks. What THEY did all the time was laying down artillery on our LRM boats when they should have supported their team in the brawl. When they saw us coming towards them, they were under LRM range.

Granted, it took some time to convince our LRMs to support us instead of playing tennis with the other LRMs, but the cries of "betrayal!" from the other team were totally worth it.

Edited by t 6, 08 November 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

Lord de Seis, on 08 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TOO! You would get slaughtered on the tabletop. LRM's should not be able to kill a mech like your saying.

Umm.. if you take over 20 points damage (and every 20 points after that) in TT you do a piloting check or fall down. You might want to rethink your drink there about TT. Because 3 salvos of 2x LRM20 is guranteed to knock you down in TT.

[ZefNinja]

Long Draw, on 08 November 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Okay, I do admit, I did get off topic a bit there. Do you feel differently about my comparison between LRMs and those two other popular weapon systems though? I think it holds value in this thread topic.

Noted, for sake of amicable comms yes Streaks are a whole other beast. If you go streakboat then you really only viable as a light/medium killer and then after that an harrasser that in a one on one engagement would need to be quite a skillful pilot to drop a heavier mech. the ability to lock-on and fire n' forget is a + to the fact that the bigger SSRM's are'nt in the current meta. It would be become a debate later on if bigger SSRM's were implemented. However, ECM developments would need to keep pace in order to counter this

Gauss Rifle - The science of this weapon befuddles me. Does gravity have a factor on a weapon accelerated to such incredible speeds. If the weapon is within its range, then no as the range would indicate that it's trajectory would be true. Over its range limit, variables such as certain planetary types and gravities could be included in the variable. We are considering that gravity would be interpreted from an earth perspective. The gravity of the planets we are dropping on, might be different. Quite frankly its an even bigger beast if you think that PGI would need to have formulas for "drop off" for each planet/planetary type.

LRM's would be under their own propulsion and thus gravity would have a limiting factor, maybe on reducing range if a gravity was heavier. LRM's still remain a support weapon where SSRM's to me fall as a viable attack strategy based upon what mech type you wishing to eliminate. Guass rifle, dangerous at long or short range, I'm a bit undecided about it to be honest.

Cheers

[Dimento Graven]

You guys deciding that LRMs are just "support weapons" not meant to kill. I don't know what you're basing that off of? A few of the previous games that were poorly and very incompletely implemented "Battletech-ish" rules and such?

Seriously?

No, the LRM was just as viable a "kill" weapon in TT, and in various BattleTech sim's, they were viable kill weapons.

Their built in default draw backs:

• Ammo limitations
  
• Mininum range limitations
  
• Damage Spread
  
• Potential Ammo explosions
  
• Heat Generation
  
• AMS
  
• ECM
  
• etc

Limited their efficacy in those games as it does in this one.

The point is to not be overly reactionary, and knee jerk a solution to fit the loudest minority of idiots who think that firing a gaus getting head shots from 1500 meters away is the ONLY right way to get a kill, or that stacking 7 small lasers and death spiraling a slower 'mech is the ONLY right way to get a kill, or that stacking 6 SSRMs with self tracking is the ONLY right way to get a kill, to force a poorly thoughtout, poorly tested, and very incomplete solution to something that isn't broken, just wasn't implemented with the appropriate counter balance (ECM) as planned.

The LRM functionality was supposedly tested for quite some time before being implemented in the 'open' beta environment, so I find it hard to believe that NO ONE noticed that this was 'broken'. Missle paths are EXTREMELY obvious in this game, so obviously BEFORE that was released to the 'open' beta environment a management decision was made that it was "working as intended." Likewise, missle damage, it's VERY obvious to anyone testing this in any missle bearing itteration of a catapault, how much damage was being done, and only AFTER the loud mouths spammed the boards was it decided that it was a mistake and missle damage wasn't actually "working as intended"...

It's rediculous.

As a matter of fact the cheapest and most preferred method of military assault is to use long range weapons to destroy your enemy. Close in weapons are intended for mop up and crowd control after the enemy is defeated. Hence the investment in weaponized UAV's, and exoset's and all the other various missle, artilery, and bombers employed by RL armies.

A "sane" general would rather spend 1,000,000 dollars in missles than lose ONE soldier in destroying a military target.

Let's NOT get pants on head ******** about this and try and turn MWO in to COD or TF2 or any other of that ilk...

[Long Draw]

Oh! I can so hear the whiney screams from all the noobs if I could get even a 5% chance per volley of my 3xLRM15s or 2xLRM20s hitting them causing them to fall backwards on their rear ends LMAO!!!!

[ZefNinja]

Dimento Graven, on 08 November 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

You guys deciding that LRMs are just "support weapons" not meant to kill. I don't know what you're basing that off of? A few of the previous games that were poorly and very incompletely implemented "Battletech-ish" rules and such?

Seriously?

No, the LRM was just as viable a "kill" weapon in TT, and in various BattleTech sim's, they were viable kill weapons.

Their built in default draw backs:

• Ammo limitations
  
• Mininum range limitations
  
• Damage Spread
  
• Potential Ammo explosions
  
• Heat Generation
  
• AMS
  
• ECM
  
• etc

Limited their efficacy in those games as it does in this one.


The point is to not be overly reactionary, and knee jerk a solution to fit the loudest minority of idiots who think that firing a gaus getting head shots from 1500 meters away is the ONLY right way to get a kill, or that stacking 7 small lasers and death spiraling a slower 'mech is the ONLY right way to get a kill, or that stacking 6 SSRMs with self tracking is the ONLY right way to get a kill, to force a poorly thoughtout, poorly tested, and very incomplete solution to something that isn't broken, just wasn't implemented with the appropriate counter balance (ECM) as planned.

The LRM functionality was supposedly tested for quite some time before being implemented in the 'open' beta environment, so I find it hard to believe that NO ONE noticed that this was 'broken'. Missle paths are EXTREMELY obvious in this game, so obviously BEFORE that was released to the 'open' beta environment a management decision was made that it was "working as intended." Likewise, missle damage, it's VERY obvious to anyone testing this in any missle bearing itteration of a catapault, how much damage was being done, and only AFTER the loud mouths spammed the boards was it decided that it was a mistake and missle damage wasn't actually "working as intended"...

It's rediculous.

As a matter of fact the cheapest and most preferred method of military assault is to use long range weapons to destroy your enemy. Close in weapons are intended for mop up and crowd control after the enemy is defeated. Hence the investment in weaponized UAV's, and exoset's and all the other various missle, artilery, and bombers employed by RL armies.

A "sane" general would rather spend 1,000,000 dollars in missles than lose ONE soldier in destroying a military target.

Let's NOT get pants on head ******** about this and try and turn MWO in to COD or TF2 or any other of that ilk...

Of course you can kill a target with LRM's. I just feel strongly that it should be a support weapon, but never contrasted support being a non-killer, no no no quite the contrary. It was just over-powered. Plain and simple.

[Long Draw]

Thank you Dimento for that very well thought out and detailed response to the discussion. If I may add something before I get to bed since I'm having trouble typing words now, All I expect from LRM boating is the ability to get between 2-5 kills and/or 300-800 damage done in matches. Please don't take these numbers as averages, but rather as total ranges.

[Killashnikov]

For my two cents, the problem isnt with LRM damage or spread or tracking, but speed. Watch the flightpath against moving targets, the LRMs struggle to keep up. The result is a fast target is missed by most missiles. OK this provides lights with survivability, But some missiles need to hit. Perhaps increace the spread of the missiles but improve speed and tracking. This will provide a low average damage with greater hit chance if lock is maintained.

[Karpundir]

So after 2 days of rocking LRMs, my founder's cat now feels the same as before Artemis was added. I'm certainly not QQ'n about it. I think it is balanced now and has returned to the support role it was meant to be.

[Xelrah]

LRMs are fine now. I tried 2x LRM15 Cat yesterday and was averaging 500-700 damage per game easily, with usually 2+ kills and rest assists. Really decent for weapon that requires you to do near to nothing.

[Varil Rau]

I love the hotfix. Now i have a meaning again!

And this is me playing a Jenner and scouting for my team. Pre hotfix one salvo killed me. Now the first one will rip my mech all over off armor - and the second will kill me. However, now i can "draw" the missiles into rocks or whatnot instead of getting nuked instantly. Receiving one salvo and heading into gunfight after is a bad idea.

And most of all - I have a meaning in my team again - witch is to scout. IMO scouting includes more than just going in and targeting someone. Now im actually doing actively something without just running in the enemy team guns blazing.

Varil: "target Delta - hostile LRM cat in front of a hill - requesting fire support"
Our support: "Target Delta - firing for effect"
*after the first volleys hit*
Varil: "Good effect on target - keep raining 'em"
*target starts moving behind cover*
Varil: Target Delta buggin out - new primary gamma - engaged Atlas on the open.
*and then i move in to finish the enemy support cat*
Varil: Engaging target Delta.

Scores after the match:
Varil - small damage done, lots of spotting points (you know you get the spot points when someone targets your target - concentrated fire for your scouts target is lovely!)
Support - huge damage done as support is able to move to next target after the primary takes cover
Brawlers - most kills done as for mopping up softened targets

And everyone is happy

Well - maybe not the opposing team.

[ZefNinja]

Killashnikov, on 08 November 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

For my two cents, the problem isnt with LRM damage or spread or tracking, but speed. Watch the flightpath against moving targets, the LRMs struggle to keep up. The result is a fast target is missed by most missiles. OK this provides lights with survivability, But some missiles need to hit. Perhaps increace the spread of the missiles but improve speed and tracking. This will provide a low average damage with greater hit chance if lock is maintained.

mmm... within reason that is why Lights can go fast, also bare in mind that tracking on the target should be lost if you lose LOS with the target, even for a second, once you pick-up the target, the missles are at an disadvatage. Combine the Mech's speed and that variable that could be what you talking about. Also think about trajectory, taking where the LRM's are coming from and where the target is moving towards. If moving towards the missles more likely to get hit in my opinion.

As to spread? No No, thats a step in the wrong direction. Artemis is mean't to be assist here. Missle speed will not increase because that will also give the missles a silly advantage. Get a lock... couple a seconds later boom. Missles speed is fine to me

[Dimento Graven]

ZefNinja, on 08 November 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Of course you can kill a target with LRM's. I just feel strongly that it should be a support weapon, but never contrasted support being a non-killer, no no no quite the contrary. It was just over-powered. Plain and simple.

I respect your opinion on your 'feelings' of what an LRM "should be", but I 'strongly' disagree.

LRM's were only over powered because ECM failed to make it into the patch at the same time as the changes to LRM's and the addition of Artemis.

Had they BOTH made it in as intended, this conversation would be complaints on the expense of Artemis and ECM...