i do fear...

[=]FC[=Striker]

yeah, I can see that working.  Add the minimum arming range of 300m, can guide by moving cross-hair or have independent guidance with tag/narc (fire and forget for the boat, although someone tagging would still need to tag).  Also, aim up to get better firing arc.

50% of what you described encompasses what MRMs are.  Which leads me to some confusion as I don't know why people can't get past the Long in Long Range Missiles.  They are not designed to be used as a direct fire weapon in MWLL; the arc at the begining/end is intended and to the best of my knowledge, will not be changed.  If you want to pop-off a rack of missiles at a short to medium range, choosing LRM is to have chosen the wrong weapon.  MRM and SRM are what you are looking for.
 
There are simpler ways to balance LRMs and we will be adding them in the future.

Nobody said that the LRMs should be used at short range. Everyone is talking about ensuring they still have a 300m min range and doing something to change the arc. Essentially right now there is no reason to take long range weapons outside of LRMs because the LRMs have such a high arc that they shoot over all terrain. This means that if I am using a Guass I have to expose myself to someone that is guaranteed to hit me back (in exception of a few areas where the LRMs become obstructed by terrain).

Just nerfing the damage is absolutely the wrong way to balance the weapon. LRMs are not doing too much damage. They are just simply able to guarantee a long range hit over terrain, making it so the only drawback is if someone charges in on you, much of which is impossible without traversing long distances in the open. If you feel like elaborating on the "simpler ways" to balance them by all means go ahead, but the only option I see outside of changing their functionality (for gameplay purposes) is to nerf the damage of the LRM which I don't think deals too much damage in the first place.

Striker

[KingLeerUK]

yeah, I can see that working.  Add the minimum arming range of 300m, can guide by moving cross-hair or have independent guidance with tag/narc (fire and forget for the boat, although someone tagging would still need to tag).  Also, aim up to get better firing arc.

50% of what you described encompasses what MRMs are.  Which leads me to some confusion as I don't know why people can't get past the Long in Long Range Missiles.  They are not designed to be used as a direct fire weapon in MWLL; the arc at the begining/end is intended and to the best of my knowledge, will not be changed.  If you want to pop-off a rack of missiles at a short to medium range, choosing LRM is to have chosen the wrong weapon.  MRM and SRM are what you are looking for.
 
There are simpler ways to balance LRMs and we will be adding them in the future.

Nobody said that the LRMs should be used at short range. Everyone is talking about ensuring they still have a 300m min range and doing something to change the arc. Essentially right now there is no reason to take long range weapons outside of LRMs because the LRMs have such a high arc that they shoot over all terrain. This means that if I am using a Guass I have to expose myself to someone that is guaranteed to hit me back (in exception of a few areas where the LRMs become obstructed by terrain).

Turning your point on its head, if I'm using LRM I must expose myself just as much, if not more, than the Gauss user because my weapon requires a 3 second lock on time, and that's assuming that I find my target immediately after I leave cover.  The Gauss/PPC weaponry also do not have the hinderance of built-in spread factors for their impact.  Also, AMS does not shoot down Gauss/PPC.  As has already been mentioned above, LRM are pretty balanced  now and I think that much of the malice against them is a holdover from "the early days" and not based in their current incarnation.

Just nerfing the damage is absolutely the wrong way to balance the weapon. LRMs are not doing too much damage. They are just simply able to guarantee a long range hit over terrain, making it so the only drawback is if someone charges in on you, much of which is impossible without traversing long distances in the open.

The "guarantee" factor with LRM has a number of elements involved, such that I would not necessarily call it a guarantee.  For instance, if I'm firing an LRM5 against a target that has AMS, there is a pretty good chance that I will not even get a single missile through that screen.  And it's not as though AMS runs out of ammo or overheats; it will stop my LRM5 all day long.  AMS effectively negates part of my loadout, something that isn't true of any other weapon system.  With faster targets I have consistently experienced them outrunning or out-turning my missile salvos.  Every time that I've gone up against the dual-AMS Atlas with a Vulture C the Atlas wins handily.  I simply cannot get enough missiles through that screen fast enough, despite his slow approach speed.
 
Given all of the above, I think that the arc-firing and descent-to-target behaviours of the LRM are justified.
 

If you feel like elaborating on the "simpler ways" to balance them by all means go ahead, but the only option I see outside of changing their functionality (for gameplay purposes) is to nerf the damage of the LRM which I don't think deals too much damage in the first place.

And you know I can't elaborate any further than to say you will have to wait for the next release.

[CHHs Cyan]

in the CBT rules , clan lrms have no MIN range

i'd presonally prefear this wasnt the case in MW:ll befor someone says this i taught i'd preempth it

[=]FC[=Striker]

*snip*

You have many reasonable statements, but in the actual game as it is played right now the LRMs tend to still be over used. This of course is the case with the AMS that has been implemented (which I think may be too effective to an extent). The key is to strike a balance which I am not convinced has been struck.

What I see in the future is that due to certain implementations the LRMs will be gone all together. Seems quite contradictory of my previous statements I know, but there is a method to my madness. As soon as the community has the Mechlab, AMS will be so over used that all missiles will be thrown to the curb. That is of course unless the AMS is changed to be only effective against incoming missiles that are directed at the owner of the AMS.

In the mean time, as you stated King, there are other "solutions" that will be implemented as well, which I believe will be aimed at LRMs being used less. I am not quite sure what those "solutions" are, but my concern and that of the community is most likely in relation to how the game performs once the Mechlab is in the Mod.

Essentially with the LRMs it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't type situation. Approach it one way and it can ruin the LRMs long term and do nothing and the LRMs ruin the rest of the experience long term. That is unless there is some bit of absolute genius that you Devs have hidden up your sleeves in relation to the LRMs, but my personal opinion, and that of many I have talked to, is that the current implementation is definitely in need of review.

Striker

[Haunted]

I think, that in general, LRMs are quite balanced.

There is a situation that arises in most games right now. Two trenches form around terrain features (hills, houses, bunkers etc) that are approximately 1000m +/- 200m apart. Those trenches are sometimes (rightly so) broken up by LTs. If no LT is rapping the trenchers, they happily lob  LRMs.
But those LRM boats are actually quite inefficient in those situations. Often i sit waiting at 900-m for a poptard to jump up, light up as a christmas tree (radar active, since he uses LRMs), just to get my ERPPC/Guass in his face. His return punch (LRMs) is no concern. I just backup and hide behind my trench. And he just doesn't seem to get that his volleys are inefficient.
If some mech lumbers between those trenches without support and without AMS then he gets rapped by LRMs.... but i guess thats what one deserves for an unsound choice.

One may find that trenches are kind of boring (and they can be). But they are broken by LTs, sometimes by brawlers ganging op to flank, sometime by one side killing  a lot of enemy trenchers and breaking through.

At least we have more strategy going on than the simply 'grab mech, jump into the fray anywhere on the map, kill, die... repeat' that was so dominant in the beginning of the mods open beta.

[CHHs Cyan]

what the hell happened to lrm 5's 10's and 15's

their are a few mechs that use them but most use lrm 20's.....maybe its just me and i ignor the ones that are too mix and match and tent to pick speced mechs....actually its probilly me

[(TLL)CapperDeluxe]

LRM 5 is basically useless, LRM 10 and 15 only good if you have at least 2. LRM 20 is just the king, baby