673 replies to this topic

[Forestal]

Willie Sauerland, on 22 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

After reading the posts in this thread one of the biggest complaints I see over and over and over again is people complaining about their nerfed "specialized LRM/SRM builds". This is an interesting complaint, because it misses the point of having a balanced build.

I call ********-- the only reason why EVERYONE would/should be encouraged to play/design some perfectly "balanced" build (vs some uber "specialized" build) is because they are solo-ing the legendary/imaginary "Arena/Deathmatch" Game Mode...

People propagating the so-called "Balanced Builds/ Weapons/ Etc. = "Balanced Games" meme should just come right out and admit that they want play MWO as a solo fps.

Edited by Forestal, 22 March 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[Forestal]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 22 March 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

So Im curious, when do the missile launchers start firing repair drones instead? Because that would actually give them a way to contribute to the fight now

Ahh, but will they be as cute as the Hawken repair drones?

Cos MWO totally needs to get the Hawken players on-board to keep open-beta going-- at least until PGI gets the Battletech community back by implementing Community Warfare...

[Willie Sauerland]

Forestal, on 22 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

I call ********-- the only reason why EVERYONE would/should be encouraged to play/design some perfectly "balanced" build (vs some uber "specialized" build) is because they are solo-ing the legendary/imaginary "Arena/Deathmatch" Game Mode...

People propagating the so-called "Balanced Builds/ Weapons/ Etc. = "Balanced Games" meme should just come right out and admit that they want play MWO as a solo fps.

I wish I had

what you are smoking.

Balanced builds

are essential

for team operations.

How are you going to

support your wing-mate,

if you are so

"specialized"

as to be able to offer no

support whatsoever?

Sure,

I solo PUG.

But more often than not,

I'm in a 4 or 8 man.

So,

tell me more

about who you think I am.

I'm interested.

Otherwise,

deal with it.

[Clownwarlord]

I love how people are saying weapons are to soften up targets. In fact you would be wrong a weapon is to kill, it is to maim, it is to destroy ... plain and simple.

The Missiles before 'disaster patch' where on par in my honest opinion need some help though but not much. That is taking in account all the anti-missile tech out there with ECM, AMS, and hey guess what cover. With 'disaster patch' I agree it made them way to powerful not over powering but something that had more then it should and it needed corrected. BUT since this 'hot patch' missiles have been taken out to the garbage yard and left there to rot into nothing. They are as useless as a machine gun and even more useless due to their tonnage, slot usage, and ammo pay load required to be a lrm boat or a splat cat.

But hey guess what all you anti-missile fans got your wish I just hope next thing they nerf is all your weapons you like to use.

Furthermore, on the subject of people stating lrms are a point and click noob weapon. EVERY WEAPON IS A POINT AND CLICK YOU *bleep* *bleep*!!! Only difference is lrms have to hold for a lock on and continue to hold on target for a continued and sustained lock. Otherwise your missiles just go to the last known lock location and the enemy mech gets to move away clean and free of damage.

Now I doubt this hot patch will be resolved before April 2 when the next patch is due, but hey guess what missile fans they plan on still nerfing the missiles even more makes no since but hey its their product, they are allowing me to play it for free so thanks, but if it continues I have no green in it so I will probably leave.

Quote

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.
...

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.

Also one question for the devs? What masses did you use to test the hot patch because your wording says 'community felt was right ... ' I disagree with the values and am I appart of the community?

Also figures for the spreadsheet warriors say you *bleeped* this one up and every one can do the math with it use to being 1.8 to .7 and 2.5 to 1.5 which is over a 50% cut and a 40% cut of damage then you shrunk the splash ... I am pretty sure in my posts not to go past the splash point and doing something drastic but hey no one ever listens to one person ... or in this case reads. Oh forgot so edit: 75% cut to splash effect

Yep I think I am finally done venting ... gl hf and I guess I will be in my mech bay thinking of the next thing to be called broken when I kill some one with it.

Edited by clownwarlord, 22 March 2013 - 02:17 PM.

[Forestal]

Skyfaller, on 22 March 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

I just tried the game after the change. I'm an LRM boat fan.

I like the change.. and I don't.

Like: No more quick-kills. That was a turn off for me. I like doing damage but 2-shotting most mechs was indeed silly.

Don't like: Given the tonnage spent, warning of incoming missile, ecm and the minimum range of the LRM the reduction is a bit too much given the tiny maps we have. The large maps all have bottleneck design which leaves people engaging literally inside 500m range. That creates a problem for a now-much-weaker in damage LRM system since any mech gets inside its min range when @ those 500m engagements... and at long range they get a freaking 10 second warning.

Remove the warning of incoming missile and increase TAG range to 1km. Only then can the LRM function as a long range weapon.

In conclusion: I LIKE the damage reduction. It is balanced. I do not like that they left the things that were introduced to counter the LRM's higher performance earlier on. Damage wise its great as it is now....but they need to remove the warning message and up the TAG range.

EDIT: Also, ammo needs to be upped.

+1.

Removing the "incoming missiles" warning would totally make LRMS more "effective/threatening" as suppressing/support fire without making it some kill-shot-- assuming that PGI agrees MWO players who don't "Use Cover CONSTANTLY" or otherwise look-out for LRMS are just asking for it...

And I have always wondered why TAG, which serves no other purpose than to provide LRM-lock, has a range of 750m when LRMS have a range of 1000m-- though TAG is something of a counter for ECM, so any TAG tweaking should be aligned with ECM tweaking


Sigh, I do wish they would look at other ways to make LRMS more threatening/effective as suppressing/support fire-- if that is indeed their intention-- cos tweaking the damage numbers just seems to go too far one way or another, or else have wildly different effect on different mech and in different situations.

Edited by Forestal, 22 March 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Henree]

we should have normal lrms back and r and r to keep them from overpopulating
support also means being able to pin the enemy down, deny them access to certain areas of the battle field
i just fired a 1000 lrms and did 132 damage.

and people just ignore the rain of lrms now.
i mean they dont need cover or ECM

Edited by Henri Schoots, 22 March 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[Nebelfeuer]

After playin a few games I ( mostly with one heavyly used LRM 10 launcher and a few with 2xLRM15) I think the DMG output is to low compared to other weapon choices. It´s more of a support weapon with a psychological effect that forces people to take cover then a valid nuke that can compete with other weapons in direct fire.A smaller launcher arsenal seems more usefull then stacking them now.
Nonetheless the matches feel good atm as long as you do not rely on too much LRM launchers - so i´d advise some more observation before changing them again. (you want might consider making heat management with energyweapons -meaning ALPHAstrike- a little harder to compensate the dmg loss of missles instead of changing missle dmg again to soon)

SRM (tested mostly on the recieving end) feel about right now - still threatening but not OP like before.

[MisterPlanetarian]

LRM's were out of control.

I'd say up the damage to 1.0, leave splash as it is and increase the FLIGHT SPEED of the missiles so they don't take 6+ seconds to impact.

As for SRM's keep the damage as it is and tighten spred with artemis to make it worthwhile and we have it in the bag i think.

[Willie Sauerland]

clownwarlord, on 22 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I love how people are saying weapons are to soften up targets. In fact you would be wrong a weapon is to kill, it is to maim, it is to destroy ... plain and simple.

Ummm....

LRMs/SRMs can still kill.

If maiming and destroying

are not softening a target,

then I don't know what is...

Just because

the easy button was removed,

just means LRM boaters

will have to actually

work for their points,

just like all the other

mech pilots out there.

However,

do you feel better now

having gotten that

all off your chest?

[TheGreatNoNo]

Forestal, on 22 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Ahh, but will they be as cute as the Hawken repair drones?

Cos MWO totally needs to get the Hawken players on-board to keep open-beta going-- at least until PGI gets the Battletech community back by implementing Community Warfare...

Half-sized repair Urbies with welder arms?

Henri Schoots, on 22 March 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

we should have normal lrms back and r and r to keep them from overpopulating
support also means being able to pin the enemy down, deny them access to certain areas of the battle field
i just fired a 1000 lrms and did 132 damage.

and people just ignore the rain of lrms now.
i mean they dont need cover or ECM

Garth himself was playing with this. He said that with 750 rounds he did around 340 damage. (I was in a match with him, he took a awesome 8T)

[Laynx]

Henri Schoots, on 22 March 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

i just fired a 1000 lrms and did 132 damage.

I dont have any idea how you managed this magical feat but please, please, Stop helping obama with his budget reforms.

But seriously,
I have never expended that much ammo and had that low of a return in damage dealt before and I believe the reason is likely thus (and yes i have logged a lot of hours into the game post patch):
Please note that LRMs are NOT fire and forget missiles (i.e. - you have to hold the lock until the missiles make contact.) And you must pick your targets wisely, I dont invest a full barage of missiles into a target unless I know they will hit it. I tag targets, get line of sight on them, or confirm their position or lack of cover before I unload on them.

Edited by Laynx, 22 March 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Henree]

Laynx, on 22 March 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I dont have any idea how you managed this magical feat but please, please, Stop helping obama with his budget reforms.

Please note that LRMs are NOT fire and forget missiles (i.e. - you have to hold the lock until the missiles make contact.)

I did and have Artemis installed, they just seem to hit the ground behind lights, do 1% damage on heavies and then people get in the minimum range. The A1 is a total loss when played in its traditional role.
maybe i should point out ive been around since closed beta.

[Willie Sauerland]

Henri Schoots, on 22 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I did and have Artemis installed, they just seem to hit the ground behind lights, do 1% damage on heavies and then people get in the minimum range. The A1 is a total loss when played in its traditional role.
maybe i should point out ive been around since closed beta.

I must be doing

something wrong then.

I got close to 750 damage

with my A1 today

sporting nothing but LRMs.

I didn't even use Artemis...

[UberFubarius]

Ashvins, on 22 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

So all of you claiming that LRM's are nerfed to the point of un-usability, Remember in TT a LRM 20 would do anywhere between 12-20 damage with the damage being spread over 3-4 locations rolled randomly. At current a LRM does 14 damage to a single location with up to an additional 8 being done to every location within 1.8 meters of the initial hit location. Best case being 2 additional locations on most mechs so call it up to 30 damage from a weapon meant to do 12-20.

Otherwise quit complaining about how nerfed your lrm's are and realize they are still buffed compared to TT rules. Previously LRM were so OP I had quit playing unless i had the just as OP ECM to negate them. Now they are as close to TT as I have seen since I started playing MWO.

Do note a few things.
1. MWO has double armor. Which means that the damage effect is halved when compared to TT.
So, by your calculation, the LRM20's equivalent damage to TT is 15 damages, not 30, which is still fairly equal to the value you stated for TT (15 damage). Which would be fine except for the following.

2. In TT, LRM is almost guaranteed that 12-20 damage once it's fired. In MWO, mechs have time (6+ seconds) to take cover after being fired on.
Unlike MWO, TT mechs cannot hide behind obstruction and void all the damage an LRM can do at range.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

well, this is how they "fix" ECM. Make LRMs useless so theres no point in even running ECM
Other than stealth mode anyways

[hercules1981]

I'm not even an LRMS user and I'd say they r to underpowered right now. Think I've seen lots say to move to about 1.0 that seems ok mayb .9.
Srms on the other hand I just pulled them off most the mechs I run now and put steaks in cause before there was a 10 damage difference between a srm6 and a streak now there is only a 6 damage difference between them so for a sure hit and half the weight I'd rather take a streak.
Conclusion for me would b LRMS to 1.0 and Srms to 1.8 to 1.9 and keep streaks where they r not sure if u could give streaks and Srms a different value cause of code of course not because of the TT crap every1 blabs about.

Edited by hercules1981, 22 March 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[UberFubarius]

Laynx, on 22 March 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

I dont have any idea how you managed this magical feat but please, please, Stop helping obama with his budget reforms.

But seriously,
I have never expended that much ammo and had that low of a return in damage dealt before and I believe the reason is likely thus (and yes i have logged a lot of hours into the game post patch):
Please note that LRMs are NOT fire and forget missiles (i.e. - you have to hold the lock until the missiles make contact.) And you must pick your targets wisely, I dont invest a full barage of missiles into a target unless I know they will hit it. I tag targets, get line of sight on them, or confirm their position or lack of cover before I unload on them.

So... kind of like every other direct fire weapons?
Except that this "direct fire" weapon takes 6~8 seconds to reach its target?

Willie Sauerland, on 22 March 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I must be doing

something wrong then.

I got close to 750 damage

with my A1 today

sporting nothing but LRMs.

I didn't even use Artemis...

You got a screenshot of that?
I find that hard to believe unless your opponent have no ECM and were standing still due to one reason or another (or bunched together a lot).
How many missiles did you use?

[Laynx]

I on average since the last patch get around 250-500 damage per match, occasionally higher. This is not so unreasonable. However I was with a friend who was also coordinating attacks with me and I did have tag/artemis 50lrms per volley and occasionally, depending on what he brought out to fight with, ecm.

Edited by Laynx, 22 March 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

Was playing the Cat C4 with 2 X LRM15, 2 X SRM6, TAG, 1 MPL pre patch up until a few games post hot fix. Yes, I'm one of those who prefer balanced builds.

With the current damage numbers post hot fix, my conclusion is that the current configuration is not really worth using in a solo PUG situation. The actual damage achieved for the disadvantages of ammo limitations, the sacrifice of 1 energy hard point for TAG, flight duration to target, need to maintain TAG, LoS and use Artemis to maximize damage just makes using LRMs in a non-boating set up unattractive at this time.

I could replace the LRMs with SRMs which would free up the energy hard point currently used for TAG but without Hit State Rewinding at this time, the half second delay between hitting fire and the missiles launching makes SRMs tough to use. I prefer to use SRMs as a backup rather than primary weapon due to this and given the fact that the C4 has only 2 energy hard points in the CT, it will probably be better to just use some other laser heavy build.

I don't use SSRMs in missile heavy chassis, they're just too easily rendered useless by ECM. Actually, I've hardly used them at all since ECM came out.

TL; DR

Time to mothball the C4 until HSR for missiles are implemented or there are some changes to LRMs. I'll roll it out for further testing when that happens but no point using it unless I want to go 4 X LRM15 / 20.

[Willie Sauerland]

UberFubarius, on 22 March 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

So... kind of like every other direct fire weapons?
Except that this "direct fire" weapon takes 6~8 seconds to reach its target?


You got a screenshot of that?
I find that hard to believe unless your opponent have no ECM and were standing still due to one reason or another (or bunched together a lot).
How many missiles did you use?

My LRM boat

has 2160 missiles.

I did not get the screen shot

as I didn't know I would be posting here,

but I think I had around 800 left

when I finished.

So approximately 1360 fired or so.

Here's my build:

CPLT-A1