673 replies to this topic

[Jabilo]

Just to offer some feed back, LRMs are definitely screwed.

I had a centurion at 400mm, locked AND tagged AND artemis. I volleyed about 400 lrms at him.

After the game when I had also saturated several other targets my damage was 184.

Now we are not talking indirect fire here, we are talking about missiles I SAW HIT with the old trusty mark one eyeball.

Anyway,that's my feed back - I look forward to the fix.

[stjobe]

Jabilo, on 24 March 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Just to offer some feed back, LRMs are definitely screwed.

I had a centurion at 400mm, locked AND tagged AND artemis. I volleyed about 400 lrms at him.

After the game when I had also saturated several other targets my damage was 184.

Now we are not talking indirect fire here, we are talking about missiles I SAW HIT with the old trusty mark one eyeball.

Anyway,that's my feed back - I look forward to the fix.

Might have to check your eyesight then, because you're claiming that your TAG+Artemis+LoS LRMs did less than 0.4 damage per missile when their listed damage is 0.7 + splash damage.

Are you perhaps exaggerating a bit for effect here?

[Jabilo]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Might have to check your eyesight then, because you're claiming that your TAG+Artemis+LoS LRMs did less than 0.4 damage per missile when their listed damage is 0.7 + splash damage.

Are you perhaps exaggerating a bit for effect here?

What I am saying my friend is that missiles are not working correctly.

I am finding that my damage output is temperamental.

I have no axe to grind vis. a vis. missiles. I do not normally play missile boats. I am levelling Awesomes and trying out a few builds.

The feedback is that missiles may have issues other than getting the numbers right. Feedback I hope is useful.

If you were awake you would know that missiles have issues beyond their damage reduction (i.e. numerous bugs and inconsistent behaviour) and that I am not the only one seeing odd missile behaviour.

This is why the damage reduction is a "temporary bug fix" as opposed to "balancing" - there are acknowledged problems with the mechanics.

Just adding my experience to the official thread.

Perhaps the problem is with accuracy, tracking or hit registration as opposed to damage per warhead?

In many games, damage has seemed to be ok, but I have played a couple of rounds where damage did not seem consistent even with the new numbers.

tl:dr No I am not exaggerating - either for affect or any other reason. Take it or leave it mate.

Edited by Jabilo, 24 March 2013 - 04:48 PM.

[Rhent]

LRM's after this so called "fix" are now useless. I no longer run AMS on any of my builds. I no longer put ANY LRM's on my mech because they are simply wasted tonnage. I'm seeing less and less ECM equipped mechs because again, LRM's aren't being used.

Revert LRM damage back to what it was before the damage went insane. At least back then if you took 200 missiles in the open you'd die, now its a light sand papering.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rhent, on 24 March 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

LRM's after this so called "fix" are now useless. I no longer run AMS on any of my builds. I no longer put ANY LRM's on my mech because they are simply wasted tonnage. I'm seeing less and less ECM equipped mechs because again, LRM's aren't being used.

Revert LRM damage back to what it was before the damage went insane. At least back then if you took 200 missiles in the open you'd die, now its a light sand papering.

Last game I wa sin I ran across hte water in river city, from the base with the jet on it, across he open water to the other side in a 6LL stalker. As soon as I was in the open I started taking lrm hits from two cats. I took a combined 10-15 flights and my armor was still yellow when I got to where I was going, no AMS

[Haitchpeasauce]

After some testing of various cheese missile builds, here are my touchy feelings ...

Atlas D-DC, 3xALRM15 - LRMs worked well enough. Got good damage and great suppression. Damage feels a little on the low side, will need the tiniest buff to make them feel not so anaemic.

Raven 3L, 2xSSRM2- Streaks feel just right. A softening weapon, not a Commando-murdering weapon.

Catapult A1, 4xASRM6, 2xASRM4 - SRMs also working well. Felt like I was doing good damage without feeling silly overpowering.


Final thoughts:

​Missiles aren't nerfed that badly to deserve the massive withdrawal from the field that I've been seeing. But it is a relief to see more varieties of mechs rather than having to require ECM mechs. ECM is the game breaker right now for LRMs

LRMs feel a little bit too weak, and could do a tiny bit more damage. SRMs and SSRMs feel good.

If I had to choose between a temporary missile nerf that meant more variety of games, or a temporary missile overpowered bug that meant nothing but punishing LRM spam, I would take the first option.

Really looking forward to splash damage being removed and damage values buffed back up.

[Forestal]

Jabilo, on 24 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

</p>
What I am saying my friend is that missiles are not working correctly.

I am finding that my damage output is temperamental.

I have no axe to grind vis. a vis. missiles. I do not normally play missile boats. I am levelling Awesomes and trying out a few builds.

I will say that "temperamental" is probably the right word (probably also describes the person calling you blind, just because your test results don't match his...)

After reading replies about "being beta-testers" which pricked my conscience, I finally loaded up my NON-artemis lrm (basically the "trial mech") config and went out for a spin.

Testing Grounds: Wow, not bad-- the tighter grouping and more linear flight path of lrms actually made it easier for a boater to figure out the best place to "make a stand"-- so as to speak-- and made me check to make sure I was NOT using artemis... This was probably what resulted in the "mystery missile damage" bug-- before the hotfix dialed down the damage and splash radius-- I mean, if lrms felt like long-range ssrms, then ssrms must have turned into PPCs?!

In Game: Congrats, PGI-- you have successfully turned lrms into a truly "support-ONLY" weapon which, when compared to targeting unpiloted mechs in Testing Grounds, are:
1) 50% as effective against mechs that actually have pilots who get warned and can do a turn/torso- twist in time;
2) 25% as effective against light/fast mechs that actually have pilots who get warned and can actually get-to-cover or out-of-lock/range in time;
3) 0-10% as effective against mechs with ecm-- 10% when tag/counter-ecm IS in play, cos those ECM mechs actually have pilots who get warned and can break-away from tag/counter-ecm.

And I was playing with brawlers who actively targeted and engaged the other team... but I think I basically lost the game for them-- since they had 1 less brawler/sniper on the team, and 1 more "support build" that didn't send out much more than "incoming missile" warnings.


I see now why you didn't want anyone to play Spreadsheet Warrior after the hotfix-- cos damage-per-second numbers are almost completely meaningless when it comes to "support weapons" like the lrms, which are so easily "countered/avoided" in so many ways...

It's not like the hit/damages issues with ballistics/PPC, where one major fix like the host-state-rewind would be able to tell you how accurate/effective they are.

TL;DR: I guess I understand what all the hullabaloo over the introduction of artemis was about now... it's like the single-heatsinks (lrms) vs double-heatsinks (lrms + artemis)-- PGI just wants to encourage us the use of "lrms + artemis" like some kind of long-range (line-of-sight) srms, right?

Edited by Forestal, 24 March 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Ravingdork]

Beliall, on 24 March 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

So After trying it over and over again on a 4SP 2xSRM6+Artemis, 3xML build I can say it Feels like Im not doing much ... I love this mech and have used it extensively since closed beta and if I do say so myself I am very proficient with the SRM6s on it. It has trouble beating down a 4xML 2xLRM 20 CPLT before taking a lot of damage from only the MLs. Now I can use up most of my 400 rounds in a match and only getting damage in the 300s. All in all yes we dont have to worry as much about the CPLT A1 so much any more but the rest of us non boaters are suffering.

I can totally vouch for this. I have a similar build (with 4 ML and 2 SRM6s) and I often feel like I'm only ever scratching the enemy's paint.

[Karenai]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Might have to check your eyesight then, because you're claiming that your TAG+Artemis+LoS LRMs did less than 0.4 damage per missile when their listed damage is 0.7 + splash damage.

Are you perhaps exaggerating a bit for effect here?

No, he is not, it is the core nature of LRM that you do way less damage then you use ammo. You Sir seem to have zero idea how many LRM actually hit their designated target in live games.

[Mystere]

I think this requires repetition over and over and over again:

Paul Inouye, on 21 March 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS MESSAGE:
This is a TEMPORARY fix to quell the damage done by missiles at this time. We are fully investigating the damage model AND focusing on the grouping of missiles and will update as soon as we can on how any changes will be managed/implemented.

[stjobe]

Karenai, on 24 March 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

No, he is not, it is the core nature of LRM that you do way less damage then you use ammo. You Sir seem to have zero idea how many LRM actually hit their designated target in live games.

No, I was just objecting to the fact that he said he saw all 400 of his missiles hit the target (and then "saturated" some other targets) and he still only got 184 damage.

My point - as it were - was exactly that which you point out: Not all of those 400 missiles hit the target.

Either way, I loved his follow-up post where he actually explained exactly what he meant instead of his first claim - and I totally agree with that follow-up post. I even gave it a "like"

[BallSabre]

After a few days the effects of this missile nerf are really obvious.

People stopped using them and turned to ballistics for their long range needs and I even experienced my first ever sniper battle where both teams sniped the hfill out of each other for 10min. This is a situation that would not have happened if there were missiles in the game because they do wonders with supressing bold snipers.

But what was really the problem with LRMs (because lets face it, this is not really about SRMs all that much)? Single and double launchers were working just fine and there were no problems with Atlases boating LRMs because of that six missile tube.

The real problem was the way a stalker could shoot 40-60 missiles into one EXTREMELY TIGHT CLOUD and fool everyone into thinking that it was one LRM15 tops and this way even oneshot people who thought they could take it.

The best way to fix this particular boating problem should be simple really. Just make it that the more missiles there are close to each other the larger the cloud is and the more missiles miss. Example. 3xLRM20 clouds fly, two are over lapping and the third is right behind them. Normally these tree don't really communicate with each other but they should. The first two form one larger could which A=2xA(lrm20) and the cloud right after this one should spread out to something like A=1.5A(lrm20) and the spread of damage would be greater along with the number of missed missiles.
This would discourage boating but wouldn't make LRMs nor their boating obsolite.

[Forestal]

stjobe, on 25 March 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

No, I was just objecting to the fact that he said he saw all 400 of his missiles hit the target (and then "saturated" some other targets) and he still only got 184 damage.

My point - as it were - was exactly that which you point out: Not all of those 400 missiles hit the target.

If you already knew there was a problem with the lack of host-state-rewind, then you should not be making jokes about visual handicaps.

[Carrioncrows]

I like the hotfix

I like the damage they put out now, everything feels balanced.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 25 March 2013 - 03:29 AM.

[Inertiamon]

Paul Inouye, on 21 March 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

It is at these levels that missile combat falls back to a level that we AND the community felt was right for a long period of time before the badness appeared. I'm going to ask you to help us test these values by FEEL. Not by playing SpreadsheetWarrior.

Wow. It occurs people might stop playing SpreadsheetWarrior when you start.

[Blowfeld]

I feel missiles are very underwhelming right now.

LRMS:
If I carry AMS I have the feeling that taking cover or avoiding a LRM 10 Salvo isn't really necessary, as the hurt that comes in is usually about the hurt of a medium Laser, if at all. So usually I look how many LRMs are coming in, if it is much, I still take cover, but usually u can ignore some hits.

SRM:
Regarding SRMs, I think taking them is not very useful anymore, too, as they do not really outdamage laser builds/ ballistic builds, but you have less accuracy with them. I feel pushed again to ballistic/ laser builds, so I believe, the damage numbers need to be tweaked a little, CDs removed (4 seconds for 9 damage that is spread?) or splash damage width would be needed to increase at least for srms.

Edited by Blowfeld, 25 March 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[Budor]

SRM = is fine now
SSRM = still to good in light vs ecm-light combat
LRM = could use a slight buff

[arghmace]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

So basically - because ECM does what it's supposed to do - mess with targetting - you think LRMs should...

Erm... ECM is not supposed to prevent lock on, only increase the time.

Quote

all to compensate for the simple fact that YOU forgot to bring another weapon.

This is a moot point. Even if I have just one LRM launcher and tons of other weapons, my LRM launcher is still too often dead weight and useless as it is. Better off without it with all these hard and soft counters.

Quote

Have you given any thought to the crap you just posted? No, of course not... You sir, have absolutely no buisness posting any of your "expert" advice on these forums, ever again.

Right back at ya!

[MN03]

MWO has changed to a sniper game.

[MN03]

Thontor, on 25 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

It was a sniper game long before any of this missile stuff happened.

Except that most short range weapons have been nerfed (SRMs/sSRMS). Most people now go for the (next) easy damage weapons, which is PPC/AC's.