673 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Thontor, on 25 March 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

They were so good before, that you were stupid not to take whatever variant of the Centurion, Catapult, or Atlas that could use the most SRMs. That is a sure sign that they were too good. Other weapon types should be just as viable.

My triple-Artemis-SRM-6 CN9-A says SRMs are great killers still. Not stupidly OP like before, but easily worth their weight (and heat) still.

Edit: My COM-2D says SSRMs are still working fine as well:

Edited by stjobe, 25 March 2013 - 01:17 PM.

[Marius Malthus]

where is the all classes count. we dont want an arms race ? PGI ? care to comment ? after this hotfix i only see a arms race in moat matches.

cause in my opinion with these values changes most medium mech pilots are screwed... how can you pack a punch with mediums ? ohhh that's right with missiles.

your answer to the problem you have created is to decrease values ? laughable solution that is.

[arghmace]

Marius Malthus, on 25 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

how can you pack a punch with mediums?

Put 2 LL and 7 SL in a HBK-4P.

[Marius Malthus]

arghmace, on 25 March 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Put 2 LL and 7 SL in a HBK-4P.

what i was trying to say is that those changes hurt a splat cat... but they hurt a lot more guys with only 2 launches or only one.

and that is nerfing chassis and not only weapon system's. the 4sp is built around launchers like the 4g is build around a ballistic slot.

[Spades Kincaid]

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

Have you given any thought to the crap you just posted? No, of course not...

So basically - because ECM does what it's supposed to do - mess with targetting - you think LRMs should be able to destroy anything in one or two salvos in the short time when you are able to get a lock - all to compensate for the simple fact that YOU forgot to bring another weapon.

Sereves you right for building a mech that relies on one angle of attack to do all it's damage. How about you send an ECM mech of your own to counter? Thought about that? Probably not - because "only mechs that boat one type of weapon and 1-2 shot anything are viable" How about bringing a DF weapon to go with all those LRMs?


And what about anything that does not have ECM? Following your "logic" - any mech that doesn't have ECM (and thus the ability to prevent some dork with 80 LRMs killing him in one salvo) is not a viable choice.


You sir, have absolutely no buisness posting any of your "expert" advice on these forums, ever again.

"If you want them to do TT type damage, then they have to be far more TT equivalently reliable to actually hit something with. They were only viable because they did crazy dmg when they did hit. That's a bad thing obviously."

Reading comprehension is a good thing before you spout off trying to tell me what I said.

Strike one.

The only Mech I own that has only type of weapon, and only LRM's is a C4. Know why I had it? To Elite my K2 and C1. You know, the variant without missles and the least 'boat' of the missle variants. And I brought 2 MLAS on it sometimes and sometimes Tag instead.

Strike two.

Mechs without ECM can still pay attention to what's going on and use cover smartly when they see LRM's flying about or get missle locked. I do it all the time. Nowhere did I say or my post imply I think 80 LRM's should kill in one salvo.

The point was, if those 80 LRM's are going to dmg at or near TT values (again, that would be a good thing to balance for) like other weapons....then they need to actually hit more reliably as they do in TT. That list of things, combined, prevents that from being possible.

LRM's were only being used because despite all the other limitations making them easy to avoid...they did crazy dmg when they did hit. BAD.

Making LRM's strike at closer to TT damage (approximately done), AND then fixing their flightpath issues, and making then a little harder to hide from after launch (A flight speed increase)...so that they actually hit a bit more often. GOOD.

Strike Three.

You sir, are out.

Take some time before you rage-react to what you -think- is being said and make unfounded assumptions.

Edited by Spades Kincaid, 25 March 2013 - 03:20 PM.

[WVAnonymous]

Thontor, on 24 March 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

That's funny, my 3C is similar... But no medium lasers to skew the numbers... Just two Artemis LRM15 and TAG... With 7 tons of ammo and probably a bigger engine than yours.

And I average over 2.0 KDR and W/L with over 300 damage on average per match with it.... Remember that's using only LRMs and only since the hotfix.

It's just odd that the only viable LRM builds now are the ones that can run over 80 kph so you can get appropriate TAG distance for ECM, keep visual continuity, and so on.

I don't think that is the original intent of the game and the weapon system.

[Forestal]

WVAnonymous, on 25 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

It's just odd that the only viable LRM builds now are the ones that can run over 80 kph so you can get appropriate TAG distance for ECM, keep visual continuity, and so on.

I don't think that is the original intent of the game and the weapon system.

No, it's new vision of PGI for lrms as "MEDIUM-ranged DIRECT-fire" weapons to be used with "line-of-sight" TAG + Artemis.

"LRMS + TAG + ARTEMIS" are the double heat-sinks of MWO now-- "LRMS" by themselves are nothing more than the single heat-sink technology of yesteryears...

Anyway, now people can finally get off the case of lrms being low-skill "noob-tubes"-- cos it's "MEDIUM-ranged DIRECT-fire" weapon (effective only with "line-of-sight" TAG + Artemis) now... and get back on the case of truly ZERO-skill, big impact equipment like the ECMs.

Edited by Forestal, 25 March 2013 - 06:52 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

People keep talking about LRM damage when the ECM is the main problem. Damage can stay how it is for all I care. What we need is ECM gutted or BAP buffed up to counter it. Either way, an LRM Carrier needs to be able to shoot in the first place. Until then, this role is dead to me. Whether or not you can have fun or do your job is entirely decided by ECM lottery numbers... which often isn't fun at all. Snipers can however can freely drop into any match and nothing will stop them from firing those 1km+ guns. It's insulting and sad how much better snipers are in this game, and the ECM is to blame for this, not missile damage numbers. Until they decide to fix ECM/BAP, you'll continue to see 10x as many snipers as you do LRM Carriers. Even while missiles were OP, I still saw far more snipers. Or more people just used ECM to stop the missiles.

[Eric Generic]

Does it have to be temporary? It pretty much balanced the game. Might make abit of sense to make the launchers alittle lighter, but beyond that, I really like this change. Now people have to use skill to win.

[MN03]

Gunther Nhilathok, on 26 March 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

Does it have to be temporary? It pretty much balanced the game. Might make abit of sense to make the launchers alittle lighter, but beyond that, I really like this change. Now people have to use skill to win.

Because shooting someone with double ac/20 is skill? I use 6LL's on my stalker with 21 DH's and always end the round with multiple kills. Most weapons don't require skill. Shooting LRM's at ECM protected targets requires skill.

[Mechteric]

WVAnonymous, on 25 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

It's just odd that the only viable LRM builds now are the ones that can run over 80 kph so you can get appropriate TAG distance for ECM, keep visual continuity, and so on.

I don't think that is the original intent of the game and the weapon system.

that's more a statement on the current state of ECM, not LRMs. We'll just have to wait and see what they do to address ECM, but LRMs currently are completely useable if played right.

[Phaesphoros]

IMHO, the streaks still core CT too fast. Had a match recently with a TBT (2 LPL + 2 LM) vs a Trollmando (COM-2D with 3*SSRM2), and it cored me while I was trying to focus damage with my lasers (same happened today CDA vs RVN-3L).
Yes, it's far better than before, but SSRMs shouldn't focus on CT - otherwise, SRM2s are useless (as they spread). Damage is fine, but when SSRM2s spread, they might need a dmg buff again to be viable (or different functionality, e.g. similar to TT).

[Cathal Witwemacher]

I find it odd that SRMs do more damage but have a smaller blast radius. Normally, a larger boom means a bigger blast radius. I guess you could justify it as saying SRMs are more of a shaped charge and LRMs are more of an artillery weapon. Yes, that would make sense.

[stjobe]

Cathal Witwemacher, on 26 March 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

I find it odd that SRMs do more damage but have a smaller blast radius. Normally, a larger boom means a bigger blast radius. I guess you could justify it as saying SRMs are more of a shaped charge and LRMs are more of an artillery weapon. Yes, that would make sense.

LRMs trade power (payload) for range (propellant), SRMs trade range for power.

Or put another way, the LRM has a smaller warhead than the SRM.

[Lightfoot]

Very disappointed with the Hot-Fix. I liked what Artemis and TAG were doing to modify the functionality of LRMs.

MWO's LRMs take great skill to use in direct line-of-sight combat with other Mechs so the Artemis buff, prior to the Hot-Fix, was very balanced. (The Bug issue did make them over-powered though.) If MWO's LRMs were fire and forget like all previous MechWarrior games, I would not be saying they are a high skill weapon system, but when you consider that you have to maintain the lock the whole time they are in flight and in doing this you are completely exposed to direct fire, no turning away, and the travel time is so long the target mech will often find cover before they arrive, MWO's LRMs become a very high-skill weapon system.

Now I know players who don't use them mostly think they are an annoyance to be nerfed, but that is not how LRMs have been portrayed in previous MechWarrior games.

MW4 had easy to use LRMs, fire and forget, they rarely miss, medium damage.

MW3 LRMs were hard to hit with, but were fire and forget, and if they did hit they were devastating. To anything. But they were easy to evade so the huge damage was acceptable by the players. And MechWarrior 3 was a game where you measured the lag-shooting in Mech-lengths, so a tracking weapon was immune to a serious defect.

MW2 had good LRMs, fire and forget, high damage, hard to dodge.

MWO has the hardest LRMs to use, they are not fire and forget, they are very weak especially now, and they are so easy to evade unless you get surrounded, but that's a case of numbers. Why all the paranoia? Missiles are part of MechWarrior and the missile tech only gets better from this point on. If it's all just fluff and flash, take LRMs out of MWO entirely. Don't offer them up as being what they are not.

In a game with no lag, players who say it takes more skill to aim an AC or Laser than keep a lock with LRMs while moving in direct fire combat are deluding themselves. Even a novice marksman will have an easy time in MWO with ACs or Lasers. And maybe that's the core issue. It is so easy to hit targets with direct fire weapons in MWO that LRMs need the ability to compete fairly with them. Artemis and TAG are supposed to do that when you have Line of Sight to the target. So make Artemis and TAG do their jobs when you release the Fix for the Hot-Fix.

Don't listen to players who are just unhappy they were hit by missiles, who were probably in mechs configured for brawling. It's not up to LRMs to be nice to players who like Brawling ranges. Don't give in to missile paranoia.

One final note. In that whole two weeks everyone was whining OP, OP, I quit!!! I was killed only once by LRMs, and it was by the BUG. I was in an Awesome which is really weak to LRMs, if they ever hit. Pilots need to learn to evade LRMs instead of crying nerf, nerf. Don't listen to them. MechWarrior is multi-faceted gameplay and we all have to learn how to survive at first.

Edited by Lightfoot, 26 March 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Thontor, on 26 March 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

My 3 LRM15 Atlas just does fine at ~50 kph. Without TAG on that one.

Yes, but the Atlas always does fine and 3xLRM15 is going to work eventually, but is beyond the capabilities of most mechs. Can't balance the game for the boats. They haven't nerfed the AC20, boated AC20's kill in 4-5 seconds and at that range who could miss? I know, those skill-less LRM pilots.

[ElLocoMarko]

When out temporary change is adjusted, I'm hoping for a whole group overhaul and perhaps even some ECM change.
One whole weapons group is useless. The super short version:

SRM feels very hot for its damage levels. Change heat or damage or both.
LRM is weak and mostly smashing the ground behind targets.
Streaks are useless to mount without ECM counter mode on board (Trollmando and Raven have a monopoly).

[Teralitha]

You seem to be worried that lock on missles all go to the CT.

I made a suggestion several times to re design the lock on missle mechanics to be more precise

Allow players to target a location on a mech with their lock on missles. Let them lock missles only an arm, or a leg or a side torso. Why is it designed to only center on the CT?

Having 0.7 damage spread to everywhere just makes missles feel weak.

If you design it so players can target specific hitboxes, you can make missles have a spread centered on those locations instead of only the CT.. all the time. Its adds a skill factor to lock on missles.

As for locking missles on non line of sight targets, the LRMs can default to the ct in those cases with a huge spread doing seemingly weak damage. but if the pilot manages to pin point his lock, the missle spread is much tighter and most of the damage only ends up in that location.


Again this is about adding a skill curve to LRMs, and really the same thing could be done with SSRMs. Players can still just do a nomal red square lock and shoot without aiming and the missles will randomly hit all over their targets... OR they can use skill and do a precise hit location.

What do you think?

[Xigunder Blue]

Not a rant, just that more LRM pilots will be forced into brawlers. Which means more consumables sold I guess. The LRM missile damage has been nerfed from original 2 to 1.8 to .7 - whats that, about 130%? shrug! Why bother with them at all. Nerf them out of the game and all the real whiners (non-LRM pilots) will certainly be happy. What about the 1500+ Gauss shot from an invisible and undetectable mech? Keep it in? Yeah, a little bitter I suppose, can't help it. Most of what we see and read is about nerfing. How about some positive gameplay info, at least what players think of as positive.

[Cathal Witwemacher]

stjobe, on 26 March 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

LRMs trade power (payload) for range (propellant), SRMs trade range for power.

Or put another way, the LRM has a smaller warhead than the SRM.

That was the point I was working around. LRMS have a smaller payload, but a greater blast radius as compared to SRMs. #readingcomprehension