

#1
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:04 PM
#2
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:06 PM
On a team with decent coordination, it's just far too overwhelming of a weapon.
#3
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:08 PM
#4
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:14 PM
Sean von Steinike, on 29 October 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:
No - vodka.
But I wonder whether it is possible for pilots to shoot them down with lasers - they certainly do seem to be averse to using cover, after all, so this should be the next best thing.
Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 29 October 2012 - 09:14 PM.
#5
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:22 PM
I knew people would spam LRMs as soon as Open Beta hit us. People always gravitate towards the most OP weapon. It's a low-risk solution for a better chance at winning and earning bonus C-bills. This game will turn into an LRM spam fest on both sides or one side will just sit back indefinitely once they've taken too much of a punding from LRMs.
LRMs need a nerf. FULL STOP.
#6
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:25 PM
The going through cover is my only true problem with lrms right now.
#7
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:36 PM
#8
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:56 PM
#9
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:00 PM
If the hit/miss rate is not decreased then lower the dmg back to 1.
#10
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:01 PM
Make sure that early on in the match when folks have plenty of missiles, you stay behind cover. Peek out and let em lock you, then take cover.. you just made the LRM boats waste a bunch of their missiles..
#11
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:02 PM
1) LRMs are not supposed te be TAG-compatible in 3049. The current system is pure nonsence - it's just a crutch for TAG while we await Arrow IV.
2) Even if we somehow assume that LRMs are TAG-compatible, we should take the price of NARC-compatible LRMs from TT (since TAG and NARC influence LRMs in the same way) and stick it to current LRMs. This way a pack of LRMs would cost twice as much as it costs today and we will see some balance.
3) Damage. Why on Earth would LRMs get doubled damage while every other weapon (except LL and ERLL) has regular TT damage?
4) Those freaking transparent rocks, buildings and hills. What the $#&%@ is wrong with maps nowadays?! And with every patch the number of transparent objects only seems to increase.
Every game me and my mates played this night was packed with LRM-boats. Awesomes, Atlai, Catapults, Dragons and Centurions - all standing far away and blasting at anything bold enough to show itself. Kinda reminded me of WoT which is, as you'll surely agree, pretty sad.
Edited by Niberung, 29 October 2012 - 10:05 PM.
#12
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:16 PM
#13
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:23 PM
Watchit, on 29 October 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:
There probably wasn't a patch. However, just so you know, there are two separate patching processes in MWO.
The main one is the program/executable patch, done via the launcher. The second is a data patch, very small usually, that happens after you log in, you'll notice the top left button says, "Patching."
This data patch allows them to quickly change data values, small simple things like the damage on some things, or stats like speed, just by tweaking numbers and uploading them, this way they don't need to issue a code change to fix something.
I was wondering what was doing so much damage to me in my first few matches.
#14
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:24 PM
LRM10 does 20dmg, weighs 5t. AC20 does 20 damage and weighs 14t.
Each has ammo... and an LRM does much more damage per ton. 180x2 = 360, and a AC20 gets what 6 or 7 shots per ton? Heck, lets pretend it has 10! That would still only equate to 200 damage, and it is closer to 120 or 140 per ton.
In TT an LRM10 is considered a 6pt damage weapon! (Average dice values).
I actually fear the implementation of Artemis IV!
#15
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:29 PM
Shi no Kami, on 29 October 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:
LRM10 does 20dmg, weighs 5t. AC20 does 20 damage and weighs 14t.
Each has ammo... and an LRM does much more damage per ton. 180x2 = 360, and a AC20 gets what 6 or 7 shots per ton? Heck, lets pretend it has 10! That would still only equate to 200 damage, and it is closer to 120 or 140 per ton.
In TT an LRM10 is considered a 6pt damage weapon! (Average dice values).
I actually fear the implementation of Artemis IV!
Except for the fact that each AMS shoots down avg./5 missiles per volley and an AC20 doesn't have spread or require a lock to hit a target or require insane amounts of ammo to be really effective. If you power down an AC20 can still hit you. LRMs cannot unless its an overheat shutdown or they were dumb fired for even less effect.
#16
Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:54 PM
All in all, they are still more fine than broken. Moving and getting an AMS helps a lot.
#17
Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:02 PM
SixStringSamurai, on 29 October 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:
Except for the fact that each AMS shoots down avg./5 missiles per volley and an AC20 doesn't have spread or require a lock to hit a target or require insane amounts of ammo to be really effective. If you power down an AC20 can still hit you. LRMs cannot unless its an overheat shutdown or they were dumb fired for even less effect.
Haha waiting to throw at you my precious 60lrms per salvo

Currently with a bit of luck you can one shot hunchback with this setup and after second salvo awesomes usualy loose one of side torso. My damage usualy twice as much as damage of any other teammates.
Power down doesn't work since LRMs will fly toward last known position were you lying
#18
Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:04 PM
#19
Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:05 PM
What you should not do with any Mech is walk into the open without any kind of cover. If you do so even in an Atlas you won't live very long to regret that mistake.
That is the part I love about MWO: however heavy your Mech is, you can always cause damage to the others and you are never safe from harm.
Shoot you,
Gridian
#20
Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:07 PM
Im sure if more people were loaded out an effective AMS system it would negate the spam a little.
The AMS is woefully inadequate at the momoent.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users