57 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

CaveMan, on 20 October 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

LRM speed should only be raised if turning radius is also increased to make them less agile. They're deadly enough already without further shortening people's response times to reach cover.

Please tell me that was sarcasm...

[Deathlike]

mike29tw, on 21 October 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

Hmm...NARC'ing someone who's under direct fire of friendly PPCs is probably not the best way to use it.

PPCs deal 0 damage under 90m... if that effect were to work under that specific condition, it might not be so bad.

[Khobai]

Quote

Well this is what I fear would happen. ECM Spider jumps in, tag you with a NARC and dance around you with his amazing spider-armor, while you're being rained by LRM60 boats. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that scenario.

Thats exactly what should happen. If you get lit up for LRM boats you should be in trouble. Right now light mechs dont even bother spotting because LRMs arnt that great and its not worth them giving up a weapon hardpoint for TAG.

Although I do think we need knockdowns back in the game to prevent lights from facehugging.

Edited by Khobai, 21 October 2013 - 07:17 PM.

[mike29tw]

Khobai, on 21 October 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Thats exactly what should happen. If you get lit up for LRM boats you should be in trouble. Right now light mechs dont even bother spotting because LRMs arnt that great and its not worth them giving up a weapon hardpoint for TAG.

Although I do think we need knockdowns back in the game to prevent lights from facehugging.

Well I'm trying to avoid the scenario where being NARC'ed equals death sentence. Where's counter play in that? Player on the receiving end should always be able to do something to reduce its effectiveness, and if the answer to that is "find a friendly ECM mech", well that just turns it into another ECM problem where the outcome of the match is mostly determined on who has the ECM dominance on the field.

Damnit this game is hard to fix even if PGI listens and takes every piece of constructed feedback lol.

Edited by mike29tw, 21 October 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[Phoenix Branson]

mike29tw, on 21 October 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Well I'm trying to avoid the scenario where being NARC'ed equals death sentence.

If the developers change NARC in baby steps, this should not happen. Let's atleast make them semi-useful first.

[Troutmonkey]

Karl Streiger, on 21 October 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Flamer is not a damage dealing weapon.

Dammit I want the flamer to be competitive. I don't think 1DPS is going to make them anywhere near broken.
Either that or greatly increase the heat. The recent buffs weren't nearly enough to make the flamer good enough to use over ML

[Phoenix Branson]

Karl Streiger, on 21 October 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Flamer is not a damage dealing weapon.

Why would it be bad for the Flamer to have 1 DPS? Really, you are going to argue against this?

Troutmonkey, on 22 October 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Dammit I want the flamer to be competitive. I don't think 1DPS is going to make them anywhere near broken.
Either that or greatly increase the heat. The recent buffs weren't nearly enough to make the flamer good enough to use over ML

I agree with Troutmonkey, if the weapon is not competitive, it is garbage. I would rather have the weapon deal more damage than stunlock another player on the battlefield making it grossly overpowered.

Edited by Maverick01, 22 October 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

the biggest adv of the flammer is surprise and your ability to fill the sight of your foe with noise great to fall back when engaged by those ultra brawlers - they can't aim accurate.

the first flammer that really works is called plasma rifle.
or the heavy flammer with inferno ammunition

[CaveMan]

Wolfways, on 21 October 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Please tell me that was sarcasm...

Presently the only maps where you can get proper cover against LRMs on short notice are city maps, thanks to the near-vertical impact trajectory, so no.

LRMs aren't supposed to be a kill weapon that seeks out and obliterates everything on the map. They're supposed to be a weapon for crippling people who stand in the open so brawlers or snipers can finish them off, and to herd people into killzones. Right now they do that job just fine.

Buffing LRM speed would only result in people refusing to step more than about 5 feet away from cover, lest the lance of LRM-60 Stalkers melt them on sight. The effect would be similar to LRMageddon, back when LRMs did 1.8 apiece and no one dared move until the missile storm subsided. Combining a speed buff with a guidance nerf would make more objects useful as cover, and prevent bottlenecking that'd slow the game down in undesirable ways.

[Wolfways]

CaveMan, on 22 October 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

Presently the only maps where you can get proper cover against LRMs on short notice are city maps, thanks to the near-vertical impact trajectory, so no.

LRMs aren't supposed to be a kill weapon that seeks out and obliterates everything on the map. They're supposed to be a weapon for crippling people who stand in the open so brawlers or snipers can finish them off, and to herd people into killzones. Right now they do that job just fine.

Buffing LRM speed would only result in people refusing to step more than about 5 feet away from cover, lest the lance of LRM-60 Stalkers melt them on sight. The effect would be similar to LRMageddon, back when LRMs did 1.8 apiece and no one dared move until the missile storm subsided. Combining a speed buff with a guidance nerf would make more objects useful as cover, and prevent bottlenecking that'd slow the game down in undesirable ways.

I never have trouble finding cover on any map, except maybe Alpine. The only time i've ever considered LRM's to be OP was the two days that they were dropping vertically. It's the amount of cover on the maps that makes LRM's such bad weapons for using at long range as the majority of the time the enemy can find cover well before the slow missiles hit, especially because of the early warning alarm.
The thing i don't understand is why people think it's more important to be able to use cover to avoid missiles than it is to avoid direct fire. If it's the amount of damage received then isn't the problem the boating of LRM's? It's not like even LRM20's do a lot of damage, plus that damage is spread across the mech. If anything LRM's (and lasers) should have a damage increase because they can't all be aimed at a certain mechs component, like ct.

When firing direct the flight path should be lower though.

[Phoenix Branson]

Wolfways, on 23 October 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

When firing direct the flight path should be lower though.

This would be a good change.

[Warge]

Deathlike, on 20 October 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

Sounds good I think, but that's not going to really make SRM2s popular anytime soon.

COM-2D, COM-3A and LCT-3S.

[Deathlike]

Warge, on 24 October 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

COM-2D, COM-3A and LCT-3S.

Streaks are fine/better, and the Locust is probably better off with the SRM2s due to obvious tonnage considerations.

[Warge]

Deathlike, on 24 October 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Streaks are fine/better,

Depends on style: for hit-and-run tactics SRM2 better cause you not wasting time on target lock. And SRM2 strikes location you want, not random parts as SSRM2 do.

[Deathlike]

Warge, on 25 October 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Depends on style: for hit-and-run tactics SRM2 better cause you not wasting time on target lock. And SRM2 strikes location you want, not random parts as SSRM2 do.

Well, if you're running pulse lasers, then you probably aren't getting enough time to get the lock. If you're running medium lasers though with "Artemis enhanced" Streaks, the time spent firing the lasers on the target is enough to get the lock and fire immediately after.

SRM detection is abysmal, and I don't expect SSRMs to do what I want most of the time, but Streaks are more reliable than SRMs at dishing damage due to the damage increase over SRMs per missile and 100% hit reliability minus obvious terrain/building obstructions.

[Warge]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

If you're running medium lasers though with "Artemis enhanced" Streaks,

Artemis affects Streaks?

Deathlike, on 25 October 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

the time spent firing the lasers on the target is enough to get the lock and fire immediately after.

Never had time in this cases...

[Deathlike]

Warge, on 25 October 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

Artemis affects Streaks?

It reduces the time to get a lock. There are no other benefits otherwise.

[Warge]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

It reduces the time to get a lock.

Since it?

[Deathlike]

Warge, on 25 October 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Since it?

I'm not sure what you're asking but... yes?

It's been around, probably since the introduction of Artemis.

If you're not already spending the 750k to get the "free upgrade" to all Streaks, you're doing it wrong.

[Warge]

Deathlike, on 25 October 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

If you're not already spending the 750k to get the "free upgrade" to all Streaks, you're doing it wrong.

Can you quote dev's words about it?