34 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

Ok, PGI is having difficulty balancing LRMs, and they dont seem to know why...

WITH THE CURRENT LRM MECHANICS:

1. LRMS spread all over a mech
2. In order to make LRMs seem useful, they have to increase the damage far beyond TT values
3. Because they spread all over it makes the LRM5, LRM10 useless.
4. They cant increase the damage too much or LRM15 and 20 will be OP
5. But if they dont increase damage the LRM5 and 10 will be useless.
6. There really is no middle ground to make them ALL balanced AND useful BECAUSE OF #1.
7. Dont require much skill and experience to use, if any.
8. A fast rate of fire

TT LRM VALUES:

LRM 5 -- 4 damage
LRM 10 -- 8 damage
LRM 15 -- 12 damage
LRM 20 -- 16 damage
Hit in volleys of 5 to random locations.

There is really nothing wrong with those values. A pair of LRM15 could do 24 damage(for example) to lets say.. a mechs left arm and left torso.. This would be quite significant damage towards destroying those location even with our current double armor values.
Note - MW4 uses TT LRM values, and MW4 missles worked very nicely. Each size of launcher was useful.

MW4 LRM MECHANICS BY COMPARISON:

1. LRMs did not spread all over a mech.
2. LRMs locks had to be manually gained and maintained with the reticle.
3. The arcs were much lower and missles could be easily blocked by all sorts of cover.
4. Had no minimum range and could be used in a brawl with dumbfire, wasnt very accurate but at least the missle boats were not totally helpless if brawled.
5. Ammo counts were much lower. You didnt need a crapton of missles to kill something, all you needed was skill, a steady hand to maintain lock and aim on the same hitbox
6. MW4 LRMs took alot of practice to master, were by no means easy to use and only truly dedicated LRM pilots were good with them.
7. Each size launcher was useful AND used.
8. A slower rate of fire
9. MW4 missles hit in volleys of 5 each, just like TT

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[SmackZ]

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=oyvtj9LdU14

[MustrumRidcully]

Why do they need to increase the damage over table top values? In the table top, missiles did also miss a lot. ANd there it wasn't so easy to make indirect fire attacks.
If people think missiles are too weak - maybe all weapons are?

What I would like to see is:

1) Keep the missile damage where it is
2) Tighten the Grouping A bit for both Direct and Indirect Fire
3) Tighten the Grouping even more for Direct Fire
4) Lower Lock On Times for Enemes you have Line of Sight to

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 November 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Why do they need to increase the damage over table top values?

Because they spread all over a mech. 1 point here... 1 point there, it makes LRMs seem ineffectrive and useless. and makes the LRM5 and 10 totally useless.

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 06:13 AM.

[Teralitha]

Maybe I didnt explain well enough.... MW4 missle mechanics are 10 times better than MWO missle mechanics... why on earth would you vote for the inferior crappy LRM mechanics?

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[OldGrayDonkey]

There are just so many areas of this game where the simulation falls short. I somewhat prefer the way it is now with missile damage spread out over the mech. Seems more realistic. Missile lock on one item leads to a different question... how do you target what area you want to hit? LOS could be direct aim, but if you can't control where you hit, then it seems unbalanced, and if you can control it, then we'll just have everyone killshotting everying with LRM 20's to the face.

[Teralitha]

Darkstang, on 18 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

There are just so many areas of this game where the simulation falls short. I somewhat prefer the way it is now with missile damage spread out over the mech. Seems more realistic. Missile lock on one item leads to a different question... how do you target what area you want to hit? LOS could be direct aim, but if you can't control where you hit, then it seems unbalanced, and if you can control it, then we'll just have everyone killshotting everying with LRM 20's to the face.

It wasnt like that at all. Missles did spread in MW4 also, just not much. And a headshot with missles in MW4 was nearly impossible unless your target was standing stock still like a noob.

As far as realism? Missles in todays world track and go where they are told to go. Mechwarrior missles should do the same, that would be realistic. Not like throwing a handful of rocks at a target hoping to make a few small dents...

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[bobthebomb]

i'd like both of them !

1) mwo lrm like right now for indirect fire

and

2) mw4 lrm style, low altitude semi-direct fire, laser guided. Aimed with a laser designator "the more you aim, the more missile hit the target" and "the more you aim at a specified part, more missile hit this part of the mech"

how to procede : different lrm ammo / toggle the 2 fire mode with an hotkey / direct fire lrm only when laser designator on the target.

haaa it's free to dream.

[Lightfoot]

MWO is trying to make TT LRMs, but obviously they can't be balanced. Sheesh, in Artemis 1.0 I took down an undamaged Atlas in 5 seconds the one time I tested them. Prior to that I would fire 1300 LRMs to bring down 1 'mech.

All previous MechWarrior titles were unable or unwilling to use TT LRM mechanics.

In MW3 the LRMs were extreme damage but easy to dodge.

In MW4, no indirect fire, moderate damage, but could be aimed at a specific mech section like other weapons.

The problem with MWO TT LRMs is they hit everywhere on the target mech and are hard to dodge, so likely, they do all hit. If they do more than mild damage they strip the mech of all it's weapons too quickly or kill it. If they do mild damage they don't work fast enough to stay on par with other weapons.

What about a mix between MWO and MW4 LRMs? They do light TT style damage if they are not aimed or are fired indirectly, but if they are fired with LOS and aimed into a specific mech section, the entire salvo attempts to strike that section. That allows you to use all TT damage values while giving players a multi-role missile that is not over-powered, but is effective in each role.

Edited by Lightfoot, 18 November 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[MadPanda]

If LRM's didn't spread much and had the minimum range removed, why would anyone pick up SRM's? I prefer the current mechanic where the missiles are separated for clear situations; LRM's for guided long range, SMR's for short dummy missiles.

[Teralitha]

Lightfoot, on 18 November 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

MWO is trying to make TT LRMs, but obviously they can't be balanced. Sheesh, in Artemis 1.0 I took down an undamaged Atlas in 5 seconds the one time I tested them. Prior to that I would fire 1300 LRMs to bring down 1 'mech. All previous MechWarrior titles were unable or unwilling to use TT LRM mechanics. In MW3 the LRMs were extreme damage but easy to dodge. In MW4, no indirect fire, moderate damage, but could be aimed at a specific mech section like other weapons. The problem with MWO TT LRMs is they hit everywhere on the target mech and are hard to dodge, so likely, they do all hit. If they do more than mild damage they strip the mech of all it's weapons too quickly or kill it. If they do mild damage they don't work fast enough to stay on par with other weapons. What about a mix between MWO and MW4 LRMs? They do light TT style damage if they are not aimed or are fired indirectly, but if they are fired with LOS and aimed into a specific mech section, the entire salvo attempts to strike that section. That allows you to use all TT damage values while giving players a multi-role missile that is not over-powered, but is effective in each role.

That sounds good to me, it would appeal to both player types that prefer teh easy to fire indirect version and the harder to aim LOS, reticle hitbox targeting for the practiced user, would make all size launchers useful in some way. I like it.

And just like that, in only 5 posts the great mechwarrior missle crisis was solved.

MAKE IT SO #2, Engage

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 07:09 AM.

[Shaddock]

Most biased, least scientific poll ever incoming! May as well of asked if people prefer to punch kittens in the face or get free pie.

[Teralitha]

MadPanda, on 18 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

If LRM's didn't spread much and had the minimum range removed, why would anyone pick up SRM's? I prefer the current mechanic where the missiles are separated for clear situations; LRM's for guided long range, SMR's for short dummy missiles.

Because SRM's are equivelent to direct fire weapons. fly straight to where you aim them, and they do alot more damage than LRM's

Shaddock, on 18 November 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

Most biased, least scientific poll ever incoming! May as well of asked if people prefer to punch kittens in the face or get free pie.

Would you agree that the current LRM mechanics need changing if they are to ever be truly balanced?

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[KingCobra]

My thoughts are lrms are ok the problem is the mech armor is not working so there are to many critical chances per volley of lrm's as in head shots with lrm's makes me laugh almost. Then we take the next step how are they going to balance thunderbolt's and cluster bomb lrm's?

[Scorch454]

I like the way LRM's spread the damage to all part of the mech and the last nerf NEEDED to be done to them but imo they overdid it. Not even an atlas in the open with a solid locked target should be able to get hit with 7-8 volleys of LRM 20's without having some serious damage. Just dial up the damage a tiny bit at least to give the mechs getting fired upon some sense of immediate danger.

[Teralitha]

KingCobra, on 18 November 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

My thoughts are lrms are ok the problem is the mech armor is not working so there are to many critical chances per volley of lrm's as in head shots with lrm's makes me laugh almost. Then we take the next step how are they going to balance thunderbolt's and cluster bomb lrm's?

Well thats easy... just take current LRMS, reduce it to 1 missle, and increase the damage tenfold for thunderbolts. For cluster, just increase the spread 10fold and add splash radius. J/K, both of those weapons will have to have their own mechanics

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Teralitha, on 18 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Because they spread all over a mech. 1 point here... 1 point there, it makes LRMs seem ineffectrive and useless. and makes the LRM5 and 10 totally useless.

And don't they do the same thing in the table top? And have more stringent requirements on indirect fire spotting?

Step 1) You roll an attack
Step 2) You roll on the Cluster Hit Table. That tells you how many missiles hit
Step 3) Roll on a seperate hit location for every missile of an SRM attack, or for every 5 missile cluster in an LRM attack.

So maybe PGI needs to change that - LRMs should always hit the same location per cluster. But that's pretty much all that they'd "need" to do - not doubling damage output, which kinda defeats the entire point of having double armour in the first place. To compensate double armour, LRMs should just have gotten twice the TT amount of ammo.

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 November 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

So maybe PGI needs to change that - LRMs should always hit the same location per cluster. But that's pretty much all that they'd "need" to do - not doubling damage output, which kinda defeats the entire point of having double armour in the first place. To compensate double armour, LRMs should just have gotten twice the TT amount of ammo.

Now yer talkin... but will they take the time to recode missles to make them better? Or will they take the easy road and just keep flip floping damage and spreading around and no one will be happy ever...

Now that you mention it, MW4 missles did also hit in volleys of 5..... I forgot about that.

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[r4plez]

mw4 LRM's were better designed in every aspect, and closer to TT than MWO ones will ever be

[Teralitha]

r4plez, on 18 November 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

mw4 LRM's were better designed in every aspect, and closer to TT than MWO ones will ever be

Yep... and yet people are still voting in favor of "skillless" mode LRMs.... At least... so far... hmmmmmms....

Edited by Teralitha, 18 November 2012 - 08:15 AM.