769 replies to this topic

[warp103]

Xerxys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I have to wonder about this. When I watch people launching LRMs after I die I notice that they launch them regardless of range or missile lock. I watch 3 out of 5 people put their cross-hairs over the target and launch but they don't have a mech targeted. You have to be actively targeting a mech and have the cross-hairs on target. You also have to keep the missile lock until they land. I'm not saying it's you, but this is what I've seen.

check the videos I an other have made . we have total locks on target and the numbers just do not lie. Do not get my wrong i have seem guy got missile crazy with not skill. MY and my scythe know how to target and missiles are just not doing the job.

Firesteel, on 13 November 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Either increase damage, increase tracking, adjust flight path to be more vertical, or increase speed of missiles. I've seen whole missile clouds be decimated by a single AMS now. While a group of AMSs should render missiles harmless, a single AMS should not be able to destroy an LRM 10 over the course of its flight path inside the AMS range.

lol the dev took a nerf bat to all 3 path,spread, damage.Any one with a lick of since would tweak one at a time to see is that will fix it. Does all 3 is why it at .7

[Frenchtoastman]

I like the clearer skies (to a point) and I don't usually run support, but I DO like knowing somebody else IS watching my back with some possible rain in my enemy's forcast.

The path needed to get changed back so cover was viable (that 90degrees down was a glitch anyway).
As for spread or damage, I'd take one or the other, but not both. Probably spread, so artemis can be a more noticeable difference without creating headshot maddness.
I was mostly okay with LRMs at 2, pre artemis..so I could certainly see them getting a slight damage increase (maybe 1.8).

And for everyones' sake, LOWER the cost of ammo/reloads! This is insane right now.

Edited by Frenchtoastman, 14 November 2012 - 01:06 AM.

[Hayashi]

LRM at 1.7 is ok, but if 1080 missiles launched gets 600-750 damage, LRMs aren't damaging at 1.7, they're damaging at 0.7. Maybe someone hit the wrong number somewhere in the implementation of the last patch.

0.7 x volley of 40 missiles = 28 damage, which is lower than that of a dual Gaussstrike, and in addition, have that damage spread all over the place - if none of them miss and if the enemies don't mount AMS. With all factors added in, the dual LRM20 volley is probably actually doing about 15-18 effective damage at the moment, which is why they seem so underwhelming.

I'd actually argue for the number to be reduced to 1.4 damage per missile, so that when missing missiles are accounted for you get about 1100-1200 damage per match with a full Artemis load of 9 tons ammo. Thing is, from playtesting, it doesn't seem like it's actually doing 1.7, or people would actually be complaining that LRMs are overpowered. So if the number now really is 0.7, this would effectively double the damage LRMs are doing now.

The thing is that, even though double heat sinks were supposed to be 1.4x across the board in that last patch, players have tested the actual values to be 1.4x for external heat sinks and 2.0x for engine-mounted heat sinks. There is a precedent, at least, for the intended numbers to not be equal to the actual numbers implemented.

Also, standard LRM ammo costs to be reduced by 20% (from 30k per ton to 24k per ton), and Artemis LRM ammo costs to be reduced by 40% (from 60k per ton to 36k per ton). 9 tons of Artemis LRM would then cost a total of 81k to rearm (after the 75% free ammo refill) - or 150k odd to repair + rearm if your mech is destroyed. That would make it possible to earn a slight profit if you win and don't die, to more or less break even if you win and die or if you lose and don't die, and to make a loss if you lose and die.

[Dueliest]

I don't think they should have reduced the damage of lrms, its enough that that don't track properly now and I don't like it when devs start min/maxing into the decimal points. There are better ways to balance things.

[DerMaulwurf]

Hayashi, on 14 November 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

LRM at 1.7 is ok, but if 1080 missiles launched gets 600-750 damage, LRMs aren't damaging at 1.7, they're damaging at 0.7. Maybe someone hit the wrong number somewhere in the implementation of the last patch.

0.7 x volley of 40 missiles = 28 damage, which is lower than that of a dual Gaussstrike, and in addition, have that damage spread all over the place - if none of them miss and if the enemies don't mount AMS. With all factors added in, the dual LRM20 volley is probably actually doing about 15-18 effective damage at the moment, which is why they seem so underwhelming.

I'd actually argue for the number to be reduced to 1.4 damage per missile, so that when missing missiles are accounted for you get about 1100-1200 damage per match with a full Artemis load of 9 tons ammo. Thing is, from playtesting, it doesn't seem like it's actually doing 1.7, or people would actually be complaining that LRMs are overpowered. So if the number now really is 0.7, this would effectively double the damage LRMs are doing now.

The thing is that, even though double heat sinks were supposed to be 1.4x across the board in that last patch, players have tested the actual values to be 1.4x for external heat sinks and 2.0x for engine-mounted heat sinks. There is a precedent, at least, for the intended numbers to not be equal to the actual numbers implemented.

Also, standard LRM ammo costs to be reduced by 20% (from 30k per ton to 24k per ton), and Artemis LRM ammo costs to be reduced by 40% (from 60k per ton to 36k per ton). 9 tons of Artemis LRM would then cost a total of 81k to rearm (after the 75% free ammo refill) - or 150k odd to repair + rearm if your mech is destroyed. That would make it possible to earn a slight profit if you win and don't die, to more or less break even if you win and die or if you lose and don't die, and to make a loss if you lose and die.

First, (Damage done)/(# of missiles fired) =/= Damage per missile. Not all LRM in a salvo hit their target. You can extract an effective damage per missile from this information, but you have no information on the internal numbers. For example it could have been caused purely by some change to the missile spread.

Second, what's so bad about 600 to 700 damage in a round? Unless you have to carry your team on your own (meaning there are 2+ people on your team also dealing ~600 damage), 600 damage is quite solid. In most matches 600 to 700 points of damage correlate to like 2 kills or a ton of assists, which looks like a very solid performance to me.

Third, I understand that it's not a given to be able to get out your whole payload, but 1000 damage is a lot. Especially for an artillery role that doesn't have to expose itself to enemies or risks overextending. The LRM carrier has a much higher chance of actually emptying it's ammo bins, expecting so much damage from one of the low-risk roles, strikes me as excessive.

Lastly, LRM ammo is too expensive. I agree. With that pricetag, people expect overblown performance.

[Long Draw]

Okay, for those who still aren't getting that LRM damage is completely unrealistic right now in terms of being underpowered, think about this.

My AS7-D-DC has a possible 614 points of armor. Then factor in the internal structure points. Then factor in the weapon, heat sinks and engine points. Add all those up, and it should be about 1.5k points for an AS7-D-DC mech I'm guessing. Now, consider that you could have 4 of those mechs easily in a match, I've seen 6 Atlases in single matches more times than I can count. Now doing even 4000-5000 damage doesn't seem so silly if the damage is spread so wide does it?

I would ask that this bug be assigned an ID on the thread title until it has been fixed.

[Skirich]

What is makes me sad - that about 60% here not even bothering to think or try how LRMs really works at the moment. "I heard something and this is negtive (positive) cause it will makes my slaback worry (dont worry) about missile support mechs.
Main argument - no skill and don`t need to be on LOS though the 48 hours bug was the only time when LRMs was able to be well pleced staying in cover.
As it now lrms became more streak weapon of 600m range with artemis to at least make this huge spread hit hunchbuck solidly.
How i see this theese:
changes should be done:
1) "normal" LRMs
- launching angle - 45 degrees
- aftert launch missiles fly 200m straight and only then starts to track target once in 1,5 seconds by its known location, move to it by an arch route and hit from abput 30 degree angle with basic spread.
- If target is TAGed - fly to it`s location and fall to laser pointer 30 degree on front constantly leading traget or from 90 degree up if mech tagget from opposite side of a launch point. Spread is slightly less than basic.
If target is NARCed - it will be foloved around medium obstackels and tracked even to a fast target with spread of TAG.
2) "Arrow system"
- Reqire LOS
- Faster lock-on
- Start angle 30 degrees
- after launch missiles fly 200m straight and only then starts to track target moving by shortest route (frienly unts counts - leave the arc area).
- Spread is 30% less.

This is calculation if DMG is 1.7
This will make LRMs damage formidable, but will add much more chances to break lock of normal and Artemis type and hide in terrain, will increase FF chance, will make NARC usefull. Will make LRMs to support from the second line, not from far side of the map, will make Artemis costs worth it.
And, and, of cause, will make a huge whine, as usual, including LRMs frienly fire....

I think we need to make a poll and show dev team that we want to make LRMs more tactical wepon. An WOTE dammit, and quote the vote post to every LRMs theme.

edited:
Ill also want to make NARC falls off not by timeout, but by 6 pts damsge to area whre it sticks. This wil also add some fun for lights - to place NARC to location where it wouldn`t be wanished by first lrm 15 impact or any other hits.

Edited by Skirich, 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[KhazadNo]

Xerxys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I have to wonder about this. When I watch people launching LRMs after I die I notice that they launch them regardless of range or missile lock. I watch 3 out of 5 people put their cross-hairs over the target and launch but they don't have a mech targeted. You have to be actively targeting a mech and have the cross-hairs on target. You also have to keep the missile lock until they land. I'm not saying it's you, but this is what I've seen.

That is not the issue. I know the limitations of LRMS and how to fire them.

[Bitey001]

The proof is in the pudding. Very few people are loading LRMs onto their builds anymore. I went quite a few rounds last night not seeing any LRMs salvos going off on either side. That is not right. I have yet to see someone running AMS, because LRMs are quite simply not a threat to people.

LRMs were just fine pre-Artemis patch. Now, LRMs are totally inconsequential. There is absolutely no punishment for mechs to be out in the open just brawling away, where-as pre-Artemis mechs had to be smart about using terrain and cover.

[GrimmwolfGB]

I am now running a Gaussapult, because LRM are pretty much useless. I used to prefer LRMCats, as it fits my style, but doing no damage really doesn't help the team.
Yes, some people don't like to see missiles in the sky and want LRM nerfed to uselessness. Even if I'd prefer the sky to be free of lasers, and the soil unsoiled by small mechs, both add to the game and I wouldn't suggest such a thing...
Bring back the pre-patch missiles, so I can support my team again. (And no, I don't mean the artemis/headshot-massacre)

[Chuckie]

What they need to QUIT doing is making a LOT of changes at ONE time. IF they felt the LRMs were OP due to a glitch in the arcs fine. Fix the ARC, then see what the damage is like.. Don't nerf the arc, and the damage, etc.. then you don't have any idea what change you make totally screwed up the balance.

I havent played much in 3-4 days.. and until they patch and fix some of this stuff.. no point. The game isn't fun anymore. I like missle loadouts, that's what I am best at.. and with LRMs and SSRMs nerfed its simply no fun. There is no longer a balance between the guys with twitchy reflexes, stead fast and stable eyes, etc.. this game is supposed to be strategic, making missiles nothign to fear, makes it more a FPS brawler and loses the strategy element.

I have tried ballistic loadouts, and laser loadouts, I have tried many different configs.. none really work for me. I like my missiles . having nerfed the missiles.. its a why bother situation for me.

PGI you should really listen to some of the old timers.. since I am not he only one that feels this way, and more than a few of us played a LOT prior to the last patch, and in many cases we have spent a LOT of money on this game (I am over $200 if you count Founders), and if your losing us for the sake of crying FPS free loaders, you might want to think about what that does to your games prospects.

I go home and look at the computer, go ahead and log into to TS, talk to my buddies, and then leave without launching the game, or in some cases playing one or two matches. Nothing like I used to play..

I will say partly its because of the Missile nerfing, but it also has a lot to do with ruining the tactics of the games by forcing everyone to play with 4. While often prepatch we would drop with less than 8, the game didn't get fun and interesting until we had at least 6 and even better with a full team of 8. WHY Because the game was designed and balanced as a TEAM GAME.. When you REMOVE THE TEAM from a TEAM based game due to crying free loaders.. you RUIN not only the camaraderie of the teams, you ruined the balance of the game. I cant go in with a weakened LRM boat or a Commando as a scout, if I don't know if I will have the proper support I need because I have no idea who I am teamed with.

With the last patch you effectively ruined the game for a lot of us.. I hope you fix it soon.

I pray this isnt falling on deaf ears..

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Greyfyl, on 12 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Taking so much pride at being good at MWO and sexual inuendo.....classy.

Do you put 'being pro at MWO' on your resume? Oh wait, this is the internets....you probably own China or something.

Every game forum I have ever been on has that one person that no matter how bad something is in that game, he is convinced that everyone else just sucks and he is 'pro'. Gotta love the internet.

Everyone doesn't suck, just you bro. LTP and your opinion will change

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Just know that everyone that is crying about LRMs being underpowered will cry until they boost them again. Then all the skilled players will run them only they will run them better and **** everyone into running to the forums to cry about it again.

It's an endless cycle. You should try to use another weapon system if LRMs aren't working for you.

[Dakkath]

LRM's would be fine if they would just increase the dang rocket speed. I just don't agree with ANY of the projectile speeds in this game at all.

AC's, Gauss, Missiles- those things shouldn't be able to be seen moving as easily as they are. Specially the cannon's/guass.

[Namwons]

i would give the tight spread back, leave damage at current level. and no 90 degree top down missiles

Edited by Namwons, 14 November 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[EtherDragon]

Hi all,

Heated discussion going on about LRMs, as usual. So, let's have a poll and find out where we really stand, shall we?

The first section of the poll has you check all options that apply - note, it's possible that you may not agree with any of the statements - which is fine. I intentionally left out "just right" options, as it is implied that you think Damage is just right if you don't check either the "too high" or "too low" options.

Lastly, remember this question is about comparing LRMs to other weapons as a whole, based on their independant characteristics.

EDIT - oops, first question should be multiple choice.

P.S. I will not be responding to this poll, as I don't want to bias the results.

P.P.S. If you want, post your responses and reasoning, to keep this topic fresh.

Edit Edit - I am an advocate of small changes, which in many discussions seems to be missed with LRMs - it seems that LRMs got a tripple whammy of a spread increase, damage reduction, and flight-path (fixed bug) all at once. Devs, you should be thinking about making small balance changes until you get it right, rather than the huge changes we are currently seeing.

Edited by EtherDragon, 14 November 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Violette, on 13 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Eh, I've run with a lot of people using LRMs recently and seen them in action on other teams. They're just as they should be. I'm very happy with the nerf. Pugs can actually play, and I see more variety and more interesting stuff happening on the field.

We shouldn't be dumbing the game down to the lowest common denominator though. Especially since:

1. Pugs that have problems with playing the game need to get with an actual team. There's plenty out there recruiting, so it's not like it'd be hard for them to find a consistant team to join.
2. Eventually even pugs can learn how to break locks, avoid missles, and design a 'mech not completely vulnerable to LRMs.
3. This is a cooperative game. Pugs need to learn how to cooperate. This isn't intended to TF2 where everyone can play any class, any style the want and get points. This game, at its core and as stated by the developer is intended to have TEAMS of people coordinating their efforts to attain victory. Just because a pug wants to 'lone wolf' an entire match and try and prove his 'l33t sklz' and can't because the ENEMY team is actually playing as intended, DOES NOT make the game broke. It just means that MWO might not be the game for him...

[Dimento Graven]

Xerxys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

This would cause those "LRM Support" mechs to have to learn fire control. No more lobbing mass missiles in the air praying for a kill.

Troll. Obviously you're not overly familiar or skilled with LRMs or coordinating LRM fire if you believe this is what is taking place.

Xerxys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I have to wonder about this. When I watch people launching LRMs after I die I notice that they launch them regardless of range or missile lock. I watch 3 out of 5 people put their cross-hairs over the target and launch but they don't have a mech targeted. You have to be actively targeting a mech and have the cross-hairs on target. You also have to keep the missile lock until they land. I'm not saying it's you, but this is what I've seen.

Keep in mind you're not always going to see the locks when you're in spectator mode.

And sometimes, when a 'mech closes in short range with me and we're fighting, I'll launch a flight or two at them, even though they're under 180 meters from me, just for a distraction tactic, and sometimes I do it accidentally, a misclick.

[Kanjejou]

LRM without artemis seem to suck hard I shooted a static awesome and only dealt 20% of its life with 360missilles...

[Dimento Graven]

Xerxys, on 13 November 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Most people can't shoot Gauss and hit the broad side of a barn. You can get cored easily from this, but they also don't carry 1000's of rounds. They can't core a mech hiding behind cover. LRMs were hitting everything and wiping them out in one or two salvos and not even cover was helping.

No, here's what gauss CAN do:

A. A duel wielding gauss 'mech can core a majority of 'mechs in 2 or 3 full salvo's, absolutely kill them in 2 salvos with head shots.
B. A gauss carrier can shout well beyond 1000 meters. If their computer can support high enough video settings, they can fire at targets that can't see them at all. Much like an LRM 'mech.
C. A gauss carrier can shoot well beyond 1000 meters without the assistance of a second 'mech. LRM's require TWO 'mechs for 'hidden' indirect file. Most people, actually more accurately, most PUGS are incapable of that level of cooperation, even with C3...
D. A gauss ammo does not explode when hit.
E. A gauss cannon generates no heat.
F. A gauss weapon, like other pinpoint weapons can take advantage and be assisted by Crysis engine aimbot hacks. LRM's/SRM's are not improved with those.
G. As soon as the target is under the targeting reticule, a gauss round can be shot and hit nearly instantly, delivering the full possible damage to target. LRMs, no.
H. Gauss are not affected by any AMS system, not even clustered AMS has any affect on them.
I. Gauss do not have a 'minimum' range that I am aware of (I can't remember and can't go look at the moment, so I fully admit I might be wrong on this one)

The only limiting factors a gauss weapon has:

A. Without Crysis engine aimbot hacks they require skill to use.
B. LOS (but range is not much of a factor)
C. Limited ammo, but since killing a mech with gauss is possible in so few rounds, having lots of ammo isn't as much of a neccessity.
D. The gauss weapon is large (but so is an AC/20 or LRM15/20)
E. Has a rather long reload time (as does the AC/20 and larger LRMs)

Really, that's about all I can think of on that, but to me, it seems that gauss should have been a higher priority at 'adjustment' more so than LRM improvements that were implemented without the balancing ECM add-ons.

If they implement ECM without enhancing LRMs back to what they were prior to the hotfix, LRMs will TRULY be completely useless, as it won't cost heavy and assault 'mechs much to toss one in, and even most mediums could do it without too much sacrifice, and heck isn't the Raven, a light 'mech, specifically designed for ECM too?