103 replies to this topic

[Kiiyor]

80Bit, on 26 May 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

...My point is, LRM damage is to low in its current state, period. They will either need to increase the per missile damage, or overhaul the splash mechanic.

Very true, but we are far closer to a viable model now with the mutant splash shenanigans removed from the mecha gene pool. IMHO, small damage adjustments are the order of the day now. Increases of .2s or .5s or the like.

Indirect fire is largely less than optimal, but that is a good thing.

Direct fire is currently... almost... acceptable, but only with the right tools. With Artemis and tag, you can still lay on a reasonable amount of the hurt, with one minor caveat being that you have to stare deeply, intensely, UNCOMFORTABLY into the eyes of your opponent while you do it.

While you are locked on and painting the enemy with tag, the errant soaring flightpath of your missiles is a perfect representation of the huge theatrical arm swinging windup required for a haymaker punch, complete with trash talking that increases dramatically in volume as your missiles near the target;

"heeere it comes, heeeeeeere it comes, you're gonna get it! YOU ARE SO GONNA GET IT! YOU. ARE. TOTALLY. GONNA. GET. IIIIIIIIIIT!"

...while the enemy calmly fills you with a fist full of teeth rattling long range uppercuts.

It's not worth facing down PPCs or Ultra dakka for that. The payoff at the end needs to be a little bigger. Not hit by Dolph Lundgren wearing nuclear powered brass knuckles bigger (as it was before) but more of a present day Mike Tyson right cross. I'm happy with indirect fire remaining the equivalent of school kids octopus punching.

[z3a1ot]

What i have read so far these days leads me to believe that all the people who complain that LRMs are underpovered want to do like 700-800 damage and at least 3 kills per match. They want to do that by just staying in the back and firing volley after volley of missiles.

Now if you take a look at an average laderboard after the match is over you can see (at least what i noticed) that people tend to do about 400 damage and 1-2 kills and assists. That includes brawlers, snipers, lrm boats and so on, occasionally someone shines and does a bit more. That is pretty balanced dont you think?

Now how would it be if only viable option was lrms, if they could make huge amount of damage like some of the people ask for? Lrms only need fix to splash damage and maybe, just maybe, tiny increase to damage per missile and i think it will be ok.

[Furmansky]

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 26 May 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

LRM is a support weapon and need to stay that way
It must not have same effectiveness with direct fire weapon
It must not become the main killing weapon because stompy robots war is close range fighting at heart where we can witness the awesomeness of tearing each others limbs
Is lrm is good it will simply takes this away, everyone will use it and the gameplay will become pathetic

If lrm users complaint about how less damage they deal, ill say that what it is supposed to be because it takes much less effort to use lrm
I dont mind that lrm deal much damage as long as it is spread all over the body so it is not lethal. It must not be lethal

The other option is that lrm is lethal but at very very restricted ammo

The all missile game is simply boring and takes the soul away from this game. Please do not let this happen

1- Yes its a support weapon no argue there, like a Catapult is a support Mech... don't see a problem here. Problem starts when support = non effective weapon. Since when non effective weapons are support? I don't see any logic here at all.
2- Well I'm not a military genius but... usually support and close support weapons have actually much higher firepower and range than direct fire weapons(Yeah actually plenty support weapons are direct fire as well). But yest this is Battletech and no one wants LRM more powerful they were. We just want them worth the damn tonnage.
3- Its has to be killing weapon because stompy robots are about fighting on all ranges in heart and to add 1000m is still very short range, I can see enemy pretty well and its still awesome ( BTW. any one fires LRM's over range of 600 - 700 meters, not counting exceptional situations? )
4- LRM's were good before, not every one used it, gameplay wasn't pathetic, and if it ever took anything away it gave in return... to quote Frederick the Great "Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl"
5- LRM's need much less effort to use? True I suppose every ***** can fire a artillery cannon, but to hit with it its totally different story. I still see thousands of those Long Range"?" Missiles going to skies and hitting absolutely nothing... IF LRM are no skill weapon to use? I am asking what is the average skill of MWO players then? To add I am not close to the best top out there but I could evade many volleys in a F*****G Atlas for God sake and it wasn't D-DC
6- Again it has to be lethal, if you want non lethal weapons then play some Police simulator and shoot teasers or crap like that. Weapons job IS TO BE LETHAL. Or is something wrong with me?
7- It's not Missile game, it never was, LRM's never took any soul away, they were part of it, part that was taken away by making those missiles an not effective weapon system.

There were some issues ( like with many other things ) that should be addressed at some stage, but that doesn't mean LRM has to be non effective weapon.

To add: You can't easily define what is support weapon and what is not... In my Cat C1 2XALRM 15's are main weapons and as support I'm using Med. Pulse lasers. Thus making my main armament a lacking non effective system. In my Atlas K on other hand I'm using 1XALRM 15 as support to my Gauss and ER Lasers. We can't just simply define what is a support weapon, one is sure... they are all weapons used to kill and destroy and they have to be effective otherwise no point of using them at all.

Edited by Furmansky, 27 May 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[Kitane]

The whole LRM class of weapons is being nerfed because it is possible to field an assault LRM boat with ridiculous amount of missiles and without any boating drawback besides limited close range firepower. LRM Assaults (especially Stalker) have same chilling impact on LRM balance as Splatcat has on SRMs.

There is nothing that will ever prevent Stalker from mounting 5 LRMs. What they need to do is to reduce their ability to launch so many missiles through limited amount of tubes.

1) Right now there is a bug where a tube count limit is applied to each launcher separately. If I have 5 tubes and try to squeze 2 LRM20 through it, I will fire in 4 waves of 10 (5+5 from each LRM20) instead of 8 waves of 4 (one LRM20, then another LRM20). Fix this.

2) Do not add dynamic models of launchers, preserve the stock number of tubes for balance purposes. What would be the point of 40 tube C4 variant if I could mod a C1 to have 40 tubes AND 4 lasers?

3) Tone down slightly the staggered rate of fire.

4) Increase recycle time of launchers when firing more missiles than tubes available - and make it stack if using multiple launchers through shared amount of tubes.

I'd say a sweet spot would be allowing LRM launchers with matching set of tubes to fire almost instantly. Using 50% more missiles than tubes available would fire in two salvos like now and increase the LRM recycle rate by 50%. Using twice as many missiles would start to be very inefficient - it would put more of missiles in the air when firing everything but the overall dps would be less than with default number of missiles, because the cooldown would be twice as long on top of already staggered volley launching.

---

The best thing possible, drop the current volley launch mode and ripple fire all missiles with maximum speed depending on number of tubes. The target would have the time to torso twist through incoming barrage and spread out the damage and craziest LRM assaults would take a while to cycle through all LRM launchers.

Apply the same ripple fire mechanic to SRMs and drop their current nonsense flight path, SRMs would be perfectly viable even at 1.5/missile if they would fly in a straight line and allow more precise aiming.

Edited by Kitane, 27 May 2013 - 03:05 AM.

[Nebuchadnezzar2]

Furmansky, on 27 May 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

1- Yes its a support weapon no argue there, like a Catapult is a support Mech... don't see a problem here. Problem starts when support = non effective weapon. Since when non effective weapons are support? I don't see any logic here at all.
2- Well I'm not a military genius but... usually support and close support weapons have actually much higher firepower and range than direct fire weapons(Yeah actually plenty support weapons are direct fire as well). But yest this is Battletech and no one wants LRM more powerful they were. We just want them worth the damn tonnage.
3- Its has to be killing weapon because stompy robots are about fighting on all ranges in heart and to add 1000m is still very short range, I can see enemy pretty well and its still awesome ( BTW. any one fires LRM's over range of 600 - 700 meters, not counting exceptional situations? )
4- LRM's were good before, not every one used it, gameplay wasn't pathetic, and if it ever took anything away it gave in return... to quote Frederick the Great "Artillery adds dignity, to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl"
5- LRM's need much less effort to use? True I suppose every ***** can fire a artillery cannon, but to hit with it its totally different story. I still see thousands of those Long Range"?" Missiles going to skies and hitting absolutely nothing... IF LRM are no skill weapon to use? I am asking what is the average skill of MWO players then? To add I am not close to the best top out there but I could evade many volleys in a F*****G Atlas for God sake and it wasn't D-DC
6- Again it has to be lethal, if you want non lethal weapons then play some Police simulator and shoot teasers or crap like that. Weapons job IS TO BE LETHAL. Or is something wrong with me?
7- It's not Missile game, it never was, LRM's never took any soul away, they were part of it, part that was taken away by making those missiles an not effective weapon system.

There were some issues ( like with many other things ) that should be addressed at some stage, but that doesn't mean LRM has to be non effective weapon.

To add: You can't easily define what is support weapon and what is not... In my Cat C1 2XALRM 15's are main weapons and as support I'm using Med. Pulse lasers. Thus making my main armament a lacking non effective system. In my Atlas K on other hand I'm using 1XALRM 15 as support to my Gauss and ER Lasers. We can't just simply define what is a support weapon, one is sure... they are all weapons used to kill and destroy and they have to be effective otherwise no point of using them at all.

1. I never said "non effective"
2. Neither i am a military genius and i agree that support weapon usually has overall firepower and range but they tend to lack the ability to "finish the job", they are meant to soften (if you read my post you'll see i'm not against this idea)
3. Nothing to discuss here
4. If you mean before patch and after hotfix i agree
5. Not going to argue here but for me maintaining lock is much easier than aiming and taking lead while considering target speed (not to mention somebody else doing the locking)
6. My term of lethal is something to deliver the killing blow easily. Again i dont have problem if it has tons of damage spread all over cripling/disabling the target
7. It is not but couple of days after patch is still fresh in my memory

And last thing don't confuse my term of main armament. My term of main armamentis like guns and grenades while yours is like riflemen and grenadiers

Edited by Nebuchadnezzar2, 27 May 2013 - 03:51 AM.

[Spawnferkel]

Kitane, on 27 May 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

The whole LRM class of weapons is being nerfed because it is possible to field an assault LRM boat with ridiculous amount of missiles and without any boating drawback besides limited close range firepower. LRM Assaults (especially Stalker) have same chilling impact on LRM balance as Splatcat has on SRMs.

There is nothing that will ever prevent Stalker from mounting 5 LRMs. What they need to do is to reduce their ability to launch so many missiles through limited amount of tubes.

1) Right now there is a bug where a tube count limit is applied to each launcher separately. If I have 5 tubes and try to squeze 2 LRM20 through it, I will fire in 4 waves of 10 (5+5 from each LRM20) instead of 8 waves of 4 (one LRM20, then another LRM20). Fix this.

2) Do not add dynamic models of launchers, preserve the stock number of tubes for balance purposes. What would be the point of 40 tube C4 variant if I could mod a C1 to have 40 tubes AND 4 lasers?

3) Tone down slightly the staggered rate of fire.

4) Increase recycle time of launchers when firing more missiles than tubes available - and make it stack if using multiple launchers through shared amount of tubes.

I'd say a sweet spot would be allowing LRM launchers with matching set of tubes to fire almost instantly. Using 50% more missiles than tubes available would fire in two salvos like now and increase the LRM recycle rate by 50%. Using twice as many missiles would start to be very inefficient - it would put more of missiles in the air when firing everything but the overall dps would be less than with default number of missiles, because the cooldown would be twice as long on top of already staggered volley launching.

---

The best thing possible, drop the current volley launch mode and ripple fire all missiles with maximum speed depending on number of tubes. The target would have the time to torso twist through incoming barrage and spread out the damage and craziest LRM assaults would take a while to cycle through all LRM launchers.

Apply the same ripple fire mechanic to SRMs and drop their current nonsense flight path, SRMs would be perfectly viable even at 1.5/missile if they would fly in a straight line and allow more precise aiming.

I like the ripple fire mechanic, especially if one had to consider the number of tubes available for lauch on each different chassis. And it would help with the spread of the volley too, because the target could decide between twisting its torso to prevent the damage happening all in one place or maintaining the current torso direction for continued firing.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

So much badness in this thread.

To the people who say they bring out an LRM boat and get 4 kills with 400 damage.

That just means you are kill stealing while someone else is doing the real damage.

On top of that, it doesn't happen against good players.

Have you ever seen any serious Clans/Merc Units/etc. use LRM builds in their videos? The weapon system is nonexistant.

You don't even see the fun videos like "8 spiders" with LRM's because they are so bad against better players.

January was the last time they were even reasonable.

[Matthew Ace]

The things (IMO - YMMV) to get LRMs right is:

- Bring back splash
- Fix missile spread such that they no longer converge to CT.
- Increase missile damage
- Decreased ROF
- Increased heat.

The objective:
- Make LRMs (overall) effective again, but continue to remain a target-softening weapon.
- Make smaller total counts of LRMs useful (30 or less missiles)
- Make larger quantity of LRMs more difficult to use.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 27 May 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Matthew Ace, on 27 May 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

The things (IMO - YMMV) to get LRMs right is:

- Bring back splash
- Fix missile spread such that they no longer converge to CT.
- Increase missile damage
- Decreased ROF
- Increased heat.

The objective:
- Make LRMs (overall) effective again, but continue to remain a target-softening weapon.
- Make smaller total counts of LRMs useful (30 or less missiles)

Where did people come up with this target softening concept?

It's terrible.

Why would you soften up a mech with a weapon that does less damage?

If people want to make LRM's do more damage to armor and less to internal's that fine.

But in the current game play, either a weapon does enough damage to matter, or it doesn't and thus doesn't get used or it gets ignored when it is used.

Right now, I walk through LRM's, it would take doubling the damage (since splash damage in non-existent) for me to really worry about them.

LRM's require you having advanced target decay, TAG, Artemis and BAP to even remotely be usable. They are an extremely tonnage/slot intensive weapon. Why would anyone take it if all it does is "soften" up the enemy for real weapons?

And even then it's not good for softening up because...oh I stepped behind terrain and broke lock.

And then there is AMS.

THINK THESE THINGS THROUGH.

[Furmansky]

Nebuchadnezzar2, on 27 May 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

1. I never said "non effective"
2. Neither i am a military genius and i agree that support weapon usually has overall firepower and range but they tend to lack the ability to "finish the job", they are meant to soften (if you read my post you'll see i'm not against this idea)
3. Nothing to discuss here
4. If you mean before patch and after hotfix i agree
5. Not going to argue here but for me maintaining lock is much easier than aiming and taking lead while considering target speed (not to mention somebody else doing the locking)
6. My term of lethal is something to deliver the killing blow easily. Again i dont have problem if it has tons of damage spread all over cripling/disabling the target
7. It is not but couple of days after patch is still fresh in my memory

And last thing don't confuse my term of main armament. My term of main armamentis like guns and grenades while yours is like riflemen and grenadiers

1- But as it is now LRM's are non effective
2- this one is problematic... All support weapon have the means to finish of the job. Take for instance Naval Bombardment:
Heavy indirect Firepower... it could easily annihilate everything it hits, problems starts if enemy is dug in and spread well. It was easily achievable with counters like ECM, AMS, Cover, movement, breaking the lock etc... But when you got hit you felt it. Now it feels like Navy bombardment shells the area with soldiers on flat ground standing like on parade and they just laughing at you.
3- You agree, disagree or its a matter of preference and we live it like that?
4- I mean after the patch before hotfix... mostly all agreed that the angle of approach needed to be fixed to be able to use cover, nothing else.
5- This is something I argued and explained quite a lot. You see I'm not bad not very good. All weapon stats I have are way above 50% only 2 weapon systems I used are below that actually a lot below LRM5 and LRM15. And I consider myself capable LRM user and pick targets carefully... to add LRM 15 are with Artemis upgrade and BAP. Comparing that with my PPC stats that I'm firing wildly and plenty LRM's looks laughable as with hit ratio and damage dealt....
6- Look yeah I could even just maybe agree with you, but there is no damage factor at the moment at all... Well yeah if you boating about 60 of them in one salvo with Artemis? What damage my LRM 5 do to a target? Spider wouldn't noticed it, even if full salvo would hit it in the eye.
7- No it wasn't missile game,I got back after wee brake and was happy to see finally some missiles flying again. Note, I was on receiving end exclusively ... didn't took my overpowered C1 with 2 ALRM 15's! I was happy that actually my single LRM 5 on my Dragon did something. I noted wrong angle and and though it should be fixed, mind I still was able to dodge most of salvos fired at me. But now we are back to missiles messing up the paint again.

Nope it is more complicated than that, you are saying guns and grenades, I'm talking about what are missiles and guns on a Missile Cruiser and what they are on a let say Battleship. But this is a very long topic...

[Hotthedd]

PGI has the problem of needing to make missiles a viable weapon, but then runs into the problem that making the LRM15 a viable weapon, makes running 2 LRM20s and 2LRM15s OP.

I would suggest limiting the number of missiles that could be fired (NOT staggered...Fired) to the number of missile tubes on the mech. Then make LRMs very powerful (faster, more damage, etc.)

This would make the missile spam less intense, give true missile boats their niche, make equipping a single missile rack a viable choice, remove 1 (or 2) SSRM shots from the Craven, bring back the Unicorns, and achieve long lasting world peace.

[CravenMadness]

Every time someone refers to a Raven as a 'Craven' it makes me smile. That is all. Nothing to add here.

[MaddMaxx]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 May 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

LRMS should hit hard. track even slower. allow for skill, finesse and speed to dodge even in the open. then it becomes a game of LRM cat and mouse, and adds a new layer to gameplay and team strategy opportunities.

That would be effective for anything that can actually run. What about all the poor buggers going sub 50 and have no choice but to expose themselves over open ground as that is where the rest of the Team went?

Yup, your right, never expose the Team to enemy fire. Perfect solution. Not sure how you kill the enemy though.

As soon as you said

Quote

"LRMS should hit hard"

you were done. When they hit hard they are OP, when they don't they are UP.

Very difficult to make everyone happy, or is your attempt to just assure your own happiness and vision of game play as you see it?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 May 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[El Bandito]

We need the LRM splash back, if only to swing this PPCfest meta back into more diverse one.

Back when LRMs were powerful after May 21st, I have seen LRM boatss along with PPC boats and even brawlers, since LRM boats are much more vulnerable to brawlers than PPC boats.

[Wendigo Vendetta]

To those who doubt the broken state of LRMs, case in point: I was piloting an Awesome with two LRM 15 and two LRM 10s. I have Tag installed. The battle took place on Alpine near the base behind the Matterhorn. A Cicada was running in circles in a dogfight with a stock 2 ML spider. Both were in the open and I was on the nearby high ground with clear line of sight. As you can imagine (current LRMs being what they are) I unleashed volleys at this target... five volleys of 50 missiles... at a target in the open... who did not bother to evade my attacks... with me using TAG assistance... from weapon systems weighing 34 tons including ammo... while forced to stare intently at the target and ignore all other threats... and succeeded in slowly turning all his armor yellowish... WITH the anemic assistance of the spider. Then a stalker crested the Matterhorn to my far right... and destroyed the spider in a single volley... instantaneously... from a much longer range... without needing a backup piece of equipment... and without spending egregious amounts of time focusing on one target... with weapons weighing 28 tons... and then proceeded to destroy my previously unblemished mech as well with little I could do about it.



So, as you see, you have won. You have succeeded in making a weapon system you dislike useless because you do not understand a different sort of play. You mock any alternate strategy. You have the devs so whipped with fear they hot fix any attempted solution in a couple of days after you begin screeching incoherently about "support weapons", "wrecking my shooter", and "cowardly tactics". And when the game balance is a smoking ruin and the game fails you will move on to some other game unmindful of the long term wreckage you left in your wake so that you could maintain the short term superiority of your favored play style.



A little side note about "support weapons" from a 19 year/2 war Army vet. Artillery is a support weapon. It also inflicted more casualties in WW1 than ALL OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS COMBINED. This is not to say that LRMs should do that here, but it is merely pointed out to deflate this stupid “support weapon = useless” argument some of you you seem to stuck on. Support weapons are unwieldy weapons that support the main thrust that is tying up the main body of the enemy. They are harder to employ and therefore must have a hugely disproportionate payoff, else no one would bother to use them. Here we have the opposite: LRMs are unwieldy and hard to employ, yet have NO payoff. They are subpar even when employed in their limited margin of usefulness.



LRMs are outranged by many weapons, have a huge minimum range, require a lock on and constant attention, require extra kit and copious tons of ammo to get the most out of them, travel slower than any other weapons, and have a plethora of hard and soft counters. If they do not knock the snot out of their targets when they hit, they are not support weapons... they are NONweapons.



Another little side note: Heavy machine guns are support weapons as well, but I don't hear you screaming for AC20s and Gaus Rifles to get the nerf bat because of their arguably "support" status...

Edited by Wendigo Vendetta, 27 May 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Good post. But might want to edit in some paragraphs, was hard to read.

[Kitane]

I would gladly go into LoS with Catapult, that's why I have Tag + Artemis and that's the only moment when I can actually see if my missiles have a chance to hit or not.

Except that when I do get into LoS and put Tag on the enemy, missiles are still meh and I am painfully reminded that I would do a lot more damage a lot more quickly if I had PPCs or lasers.

[Hotthedd]

Wendigo Vendetta, on 27 May 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

[color=#222222]To those who doubt the broken state of LRMs, case in point: I was piloting an Awesome with two LRM 15 and two LRM 10s. I have Tag installed. The battle took place on Alpine near the base behind the Matterhorn. A Cicada was running in circles in a dogfight with a stock 2 ML spider. Both were in the open and I was on the nearby high ground with clear line of sight. As you can imagine (current LRMs being what they are) I unleashed volleys at this target... five volleys of 50 missiles... at a target in the open... who did not bother to evade my attacks... with me using TAG assistance... from weapon systems weighing 34 tons including ammo... while forced to stare intently at the target and ignore all other threats... and succeeded in slowly turning all his armor yellowish... WITH the anemic assistance of the spider. Then a stalker crested the Matterhorn to my far right... and destroyed the spider in a single volley... instantaneously... from a much longer range... without needing a backup piece of equipment... and without spending egregious amounts of time focusing on one target... with weapons weighing 28 tons... and then proceeded to destroy my previously unblemished mech as well with little I could do about it.[/color]

[color=#222222] [/color]

[color=#222222] So, as you see, you have won. You have succeeded in making a weapon system you dislike useless because you do not understand a different sort of play. You mock any alternate strategy. You have the devs so whipped with fear they hot fix any attempted solution in a couple of days after you begin screeching incoherently about "support weapons", "wrecking my shooter", and "cowardly tactics". And when the game balance is a smoking ruin and the game fails you will move on to some other game unmindful of the long term wreckage you left in your wake so that you could maintain the short term superiority of your favored play style.[/color]

[color=#222222] [/color]

[color=#222222] A little side note about "support weapons" from a 19 year/2 war Army vet. Artillery is a support weapon. It also inflicted more casualties in WW1 than ALL OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS COMBINED. This is not to say that LRMs should do that here, but it is merely pointed out to deflate this stupid “support weapon = useless” argument some of you you seem to stuck on. Support weapons are unwieldy weapons that support the main thrust that is tying up the main body of the enemy. They are harder to employ and therefore must have a hugely disproportionate payoff, else no one would bother to use them. Here we have the opposite: LRMs are unwieldy and hard to employ, yet have NO payoff. They are subpar even when employed in their limited margin of usefulness.[/color]

[color=#222222] [/color]

[color=#222222]LRMs are outranged by many weapons, have a huge minimum range, require a lock on and constant attention, require extra kit and copious tons of ammo to get the most out of them, travel slower than any other weapons, and have a plethora of hard and soft counters. If they do not knock the snot out of their targets when they hit, they are not support weapons... they are NONweapons.[/color]

[color=#222222] [/color]

[color=#222222]Another little side note: Heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, and squad automatic weapons are support weapons as well, but I don't hear you screaming for AC20s and Gaus Rifles to get the nerf bat because of their arguably "support" status... [/color]

Perhaps you have missed the threads complaining about instant auto convergence for direct-fire weapons?

[Wendigo Vendetta]

Hotthedd, on 27 May 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Perhaps you have missed the threads complaining about instant auto convergence for direct-fire weapons?

Nope, I posted some concerns about perfect weapon convergence... both lately and BACK IN CLOSED BETA... My point here is about game balance: If those direct fire weapons are set in stone and will not be nerfed, then LRMs must be brought on par with them or just removed from the game.

[Hotthedd]

Wendigo Vendetta, on 27 May 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Nope, I posted some concerns about perfect weapon convergence... both lately and BACK IN CLOSED BETA... My point here is about game balance: If those direct fire weapons are set in stone and will not be nerfed, then LRMs must be brought on par with them or just removed from the game.

Both systems are broken, and both need to be fixed for this game to survive.