245 replies to this topic

[Master Maniac]

My comments in bold.

Osric Lancaster, on 20 March 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

What the sweet hell are you even talking about? Can someone who's less paranoid post their stats then? I doubt he's believe me if I posted mine. *shakes head sadly*



1 - Lasers was my counter example, stop jumping to ballistics. And if you are dealing with a target fast enough to cause serious deflection you're dealing with a target fast enough to dive for cover.

No, we aren't sampling, here. The issue as described by your pro-LRM peers is LRMs vs. Everything Else. Your side says LRMs are worse than Everything Else, and are not only fine the way they are, but are in fact in need of improvement. Neither is true.

Deflection is a part of aiming, and aiming is not required by LRMs. Hence it is on my list™ of Things LRMs Don't Have to Do.

2 - Missiles have travel time worse than ballistics, lasers do not.

Lasers are also spread damage weapons that require excellent precision - I'd even go so far as to say that they're even harder to deal damage with than ballistic weapons. Range doesn't matter when it comes to LRMs. If the target stays locked, and the shot is fired within effective range, the missiles are extremely likely to hit. LRMs fly right over all but the tallest cover with aplomb in many cases.

Range, again, is not a factor.

3 - Again, not being able to aim is not a positive attribute.

You don't have to worry about where your shots wind up. You just fire. You're going to do some damage somewhere on the 'Mech, and if your first shot doesn't hit where you want it to, chances are your second one will. Most LRMs head straight for the torsos anyway, which is exactly where you and everyone else want to do the damage.

4 - I WISH convergence were an issue. Again though, lasers.

No, I think you misunderstand what "convergence" in this case refers to. With beam and projectile weapons, the weapons themselves actually have a point of origin from where they are installed. If the weapons themselves are not aligned with your point of aim when you fire, your shots can miss spectacularly. This often boils down to forcing yourself to wait a split second longer for your arms to catch up with your 'Mech's virtual rangefinder to make sure your shots "cross into" your distant target. This is a much greater concern for high-velocity precision ballistic weapons (read: Gauss Rifles).

This is not a concern for LRMs.

5 - You also can't control your missiles when your target decides to hug a friendly atlas's backside.

That doesn't stop LRM munchkins from showering you and your target for an easy kill, either. But that's not my point. LRMs will not detonate if an idiot teammate blunders right in front of your mech when you're firing. My Gauss Rifles will savage a 'Mech's rear armor if I'm not careful, and that means I have to be careful *all of the time.* This adds serious wrinkle to the strategy of the few players who care if they light their friends up or not.

This is not a problem for LRMs. Hitting someone at range - well, that's another issue.

Congratulations! You've discovered the less than secret message in my post that we've been essentially agreeing on the correct way to make direct/indirect fire LRMs better, more interesting weapons all along! Give yourself a pat on the back for only taking seven plus posts of hard ranting to figure that out. That still doesn't make LRMs overpowered as weapons on individual 'Mechs.

Nope. We still disagree. The speed increase makes LRMs too effective against anything heavier than a Medium, which was my point this entire time. The utter brokenness of LRMs as a weapon - that's a separate issue. My primary "rant" was directed at the incredible idiocy of making a low-demand weapon even more effective than it was before.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 03:15 PM.

[stjobe]

"Brawling in an assault takes skill, LRM takes no skill"
"LRMs takes skill, AC+PPC takes no skill"

Man...

Piloting a Light properly takes skill.
Piloting an Assault properly takes another kind of skill.
Using LRMs effectively takes a third kind of skill.
Lining up a split-second headshot with AC+PPC takes a fourth kind of skill.

Then there's all the other things that also takes skill to do well.

So can you lot please stop it with the "this thing I do takes REAL skill, that thing you do does not" and stick to actual arguments?

In my opinion as a primarily light and medium pilot, LRMs became slightly more useful this past Tuesday (as in, you can now mount a few launchers and they're not a total waste of tonnage unless you go all-out on them), and I haven't been killed by LRMs yet (not even while piloting my FrankenMech TDR-5S with LL+LRM15+3xML+SRM6 and a stock engine...).

Should LRMs be less effective when indirectly fired? Well, AFAIK they already are - unless you have a spotter with LoS (and/or TAG/Narc). Should they be even less effective? I really don't think that's needed, but I'd be willing to test it out.

The thing is that LRMs have been so bad since the last LRMageddon (the splash damage one, last May?) that people have gotten used to not mounting AMS, and as a light pilot I've gotten used to routinely just dodging them; they've not been a threat for almost a year. In my book it's a good step in the right direction that they now are a threat again.

Are they OP now? I really don't think so - my LRM-mounting 'mechs haven't suddenly become unstoppable killing machines, and I still die mostly from direct-fire damage (as I said, I haven't been killed by LRMs yet after the patch, although I have been damaged by them).

[Varent]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Stuff & Things. Mostly rambling and boasting.

[Daekar]

1) Deleted comment. I was annoyed and it was not constructive. Apologies to Maniac.
2) The fact that many ineffective players use a weapon system poorly is not a reflection on the skill required to use it well.
3) You agree with me about the vulnerability of LRM carriers and then claim it doesn't have anything to do with the balanced advantaged and disadvantages of the weapon system. Ummm... yeah.
4) If you're basing your impression of the positioning and movement of LRM carriers on noobs in Trial Stalkers, you might want to expand your experience. A proper LRM carrier is highly mobile, preferably with JJs, and moves with the battle line to most effectively deliver his payload. Again, a weapon system cannot be judged by the actions of those who use it ineffectively.
5) Slow mechs were and continue to be the most vulnerable to LRMs when they make tactical errors. Glad we agree. I must disagree that LRMs are unavoidable in the heavy weight classes, since it is rare that I get hit by them post-patch while piloting my heavies, and I have never been killed by them. I just don't wander into fields to pick flowers anymore.

I don't even bother with AMS on any heavy except my Streak Cat, and that's only because I had the tonnage to burn.

You get zero points for your illogical rebuttals. I hope that you will be able to make a more meaningful contribution in later posts.

I do have one question: what do you mean by "deflection" in reference to ballistics? I just lead my targets, compensate for drop at long ranges, and fire. What else should I be doing?

Edited by Daekar, 20 March 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Master Maniac]

Are they "OP" now? No and yes. They won't insta-kill you, but they are very difficult to evade if you're beneath 70kph. So there's that. Are they good weapons? No. I'd like to see them made into good weapons.

That's the entirety of my point. All this negativity came from the fact that I very honestly stated that I personally dislike indirect fire weapons, although I explicitly wrote immediately after that that I believe such weapons belong in the game, and should be effective because paint-scratching is boring and unrewarding. I said that IMMEDIATELY afterwards, and the munchkins still could not get it, and chose to harp on my dislike for the weapons as "OMG, he wants LRMs out of the game, he's a brainless CoD player."

It's ridiculous. Yes, it is my opinion that LRMs currently require very little skill. I think they should require much more from the player than they currently do. That's the extent of it. That has been my belief all along.

The amount of toxic bile this community is able to produce slays me. I frequent political forums that are less bilious than this. And that says something.

Varent, on 20 March 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

Thank you for proving my point. How many of you need copy-paste functions to carry on a conversation or otherwise interact with something that doesn't respond to mouse input? Show of hands? Hmm?


I had to respond to this one.

"You agree with me about the vulnerability of LRM carriers and then claim it doesn't have anything to do with the balanced advantaged and disadvantages of the weapon system. Ummm... yeah."

LRM STANDS FOR LONG RANGE MISSILE. LONG RANGE. That means it is USELESS IN CLOSE QUARTERS BY DESIGN. What is *wrong* with you munchkins? Again, I am reminded of children screaming "I got you!" and "No you didn't! That's not fair! I wasn't ready!" when playing Army. If you build around LRMs, then you are making yourself vulnerable in close quarters if you don't bring backup weapons. NOTHING SHOULD ABSOLVE YOU FROM THAT. There should be *no fallback.*

You do not "balance" short ranged capabilities into a weapon MEANT FOR LONG RANGE COMBAT. What's next, are we going to complain that small lasers can't snipe? Really?

"Slow mechs were and continue to be the most vulnerable to LRMs when they make tactical errors. Glad we agree. I must disagree that LRMs are unavoidable in the heavy weight classes, since it is rare that I get hit by them post-patch while piloting my heavies, and I have never been killed by them. I just don't wander into fields to pick flowers anymore."

This is getting sad. Actually, it passed that threshold right into the Event Horizon some time ago, but this deserves special mention for being the standard fallback line for players resistant to the notion that their favored weapon is in need of retooling.

Heavies and Assaults might as well not move. I mean, it's that simple. Right? Because if they can't cross the open for 3 minutes without getting bombarded to death, why bother? Why not just disconnect at the beginning of the match and write off anything bigger than 55 tons as null tonnage? Because the only recourse is poptarting - ie, firing from cover so as to avoid LRM spam.

You aren't going to cry about poptarting, now, are you? Nah.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 03:38 PM.

[Texas Merc]

stjobe, on 20 March 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

"Brawling in an assault takes skill, LRM takes no skill"
"LRMs takes skill, AC+PPC takes no skill"

Man...

Piloting a Light properly takes skill.
Piloting an Assault properly takes another kind of skill.
Using LRMs effectively takes a third kind of skill.
Lining up a split-second headshot with AC+PPC takes a fourth kind of skill.

Then there's all the other things that also takes skill to do well.

So can you lot please stop it with the "this thing I do takes REAL skill, that thing you do does not" and stick to actual arguments?

In my opinion as a primarily light and medium pilot, LRMs became slightly more useful this past Tuesday (as in, you can now mount a few launchers and they're not a total waste of tonnage unless you go all-out on them), and I haven't been killed by LRMs yet (not even while piloting my FrankenMech TDR-5S with LL+LRM15+3xML+SRM6 and a stock engine...).

Should LRMs be less effective when indirectly fired? Well, AFAIK they already are - unless you have a spotter with LoS (and/or TAG/Narc). Should they be even less effective? I really don't think that's needed, but I'd be willing to test it out.

The thing is that LRMs have been so bad since the last LRMageddon (the splash damage one, last May?) that people have gotten used to not mounting AMS, and as a light pilot I've gotten used to routinely just dodging them; they've not been a threat for almost a year. In my book it's a good step in the right direction that they now are a threat again.

Are they OP now? I really don't think so - my LRM-mounting 'mechs haven't suddenly become unstoppable killing machines, and I still die mostly from direct-fire damage (as I said, I haven't been killed by LRMs yet after the patch, although I have been damaged by them).

See, this is a well reasoned post from someone that has played and has been here from the beginning. All of the bugs all of the iterations of different weapons.

You should wise up and read whenever he posts.

[Daekar]

Maniac, how would you implement LRM direct and indirect firing if you were the game designer? I really would like to know, actually. I have never seen a suggestion I liked, but you've obviously given this a lot of thought.

[Varent]

Master Maniac, on 20 March 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

Thank you for proving my point. How many of you need copy-paste functions to carry on a conversation or otherwise interact with something that doesn't respond to mouse input? Show of hands? Hmm?

Your not worth responding to, or really spending the brain power on.

[Master Maniac]

Daekar, on 20 March 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

Maniac, how would you implement LRM direct and indirect firing if you were the game designer? I really would like to know, actually. I have never seen a suggestion I liked, but you've obviously given this a lot of thought.

Go back a couple of pages. Look for my post which reads something to the effect of
"Brilliant. This is brilliant."

I am referring to another person's post. Their suggestion would be a great start.

You take care, now.

Varent, on 20 March 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Your not worth responding to, or really spending the brain power on.

Gee, I'm glad you spared yourself the trouble and immense effort of embedding another meme image. *Your brain power is definitely a valuable resource - you should not spend it unwisely.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[Daekar]

Quote

LRM STANDS FOR LONG RANGE MISSILE. LONG RANGE. That means it is USELESS IN CLOSE QUARTERS BY DESIGN. What is *wrong* with you munchkins? Again, I am reminded of children screaming "I got you!" and "No you didn't! That's not fair! I wasn't ready!" when playing Army. If you build around LRMs, then you are making yourself vulnerable in close quarters if you don't bring backup weapons. NOTHING SHOULD ABSOLVE YOU FROM THAT. There should be *no fallback.*

You do not "balance" short ranged capabilities into a weapon MEANT FOR LONG RANGE COMBAT. What's next, are we going to complain that small lasers can't snipe? Really?

Ummm... that's exactly what I was arguing. LRMs are long range and have a short range limitation. That's totally OK. It's balanced. I would be ticked if they changed it. But of they're going to have that limitation then they should be at least somewhat effective at their long range duties.

[B0oN]

Once again, we all gloriously agree to disagree .

My verdict for LRM´s ?
Quick, oh hell yea, don´t get caught without AMS and some hard cover nearby.

Now back to what´s really important ...

LESS QQ MORE PEWPEW.

Commence ...

[Master Maniac]

Daekar, on 20 March 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Ummm... that's exactly what I was arguing. LRMs are long range and have a short range limitation. That's totally OK. It's balanced. I would be ticked if they changed it. But of they're going to have that limitation then they should be at least somewhat effective at their long range duties.

And *I* never said a single thing to the contrary. You don't have a dog in this fight, kid. I'm all for better, improved LRMs. Just so long as the improvement comes at the cost of requiring more investment from their user.

LRMs can and should be good and viable weapons. Merely making them "better" in their current, lacking state does not constitute an attempt to make them a good and viable weapon.

*sigh*

Come on, hit me with another meme copy-paste. This conversation is becoming a little bit too reasonable.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[DivineEvil]

Henceforth:
- Whenever you're find yourself dying from LRM focus, look upon what caused you to be in a position for that to happen.
- Whenever you're spectating someone suffering the same demise, track the same judgement upon his actions.
- Whenever you're obviously against LRM team, spend some time memorizing available cover. Anything slightly higher than your mech will work.
- Whenever you see your team stuck under pressure of possible LRM pain, take the command on youself and try to lead them, instead of going in the open solo and watching them doing the same. Otherwise, don't complain.
- Ballistics and Energy weapons hits long before locks for LRMs are acquired. Use this for your advantage.
- Change positions often. Works against everything.
- See the meta? Fight the meta. Following meta makes it stronger.
- Use LRMs when you want to, not "because you have to".
- When LRM boats focus you down, imagine them replaced with Ballistic boats or Energy boats of the same weight. Would it be that different really?
- Then think for a minute, is missile speed really what caused this?
- Remember that LRM abuse will end, then 3/3/3/3 is implemented, indiferently.

[Ustarish]

now everyone will start taking ams to the battlefield.
lurms wont be able to hit anything at all.
lrm boats pilots will cry again that they are buged and underpowered.
circle will continue.

i dont think lrm needed buff.
it just wasnt a weapon designed for point and click action.

[Dracol]

Appogee, on 20 March 2014 - 02:50 AM, said:

I'm not sure I buy into the ''it's our job to get you targets" idea.

No more than I think it's your job to save me by LRMing the guy I'm in a brawl with.

Generally though I'll do whatever I can to help my team mates succeed.

This right here.....

The special players, the rambos, the "I am Legendary", the "pugs are there as body shields" people, the solo junkies, the glory hounds, the bad arses, the mech gods, the leets....

these are the people who seem to have the most hatred to the newest changes.

Team players on the other hand are enjoying the extra exp gained from spotting for LRMS.

Speaking of which, a tag laser is calling me.....

[1453 R]

Maniac, please pause for a moment.

Stop.

Breathe.

Now. Think for a moment about what you’re doing. It is, in fact, the same as what you accused me of doing – using the lowest class of players as an example of how the weapon is “supposed” to function, and then denigrating that.

Certainly, skillful play is more than possible with direct-fire weapons. If it was not this game would be in a sorry state indeed, and in fact I respect the skill and acumen of truly fantastic direct-fire shots quite a bit. The point I was trying to raise is that you seem to equate the ignoramuses standing around in STK-3F©s vomiting missiles at every red box they say as both “DA NORM”, as well as “DA HEIGHT OF LRM TAKTIX”.

This is a gross overexaggeration and a critical misrepresentation and you know it as well as I do.

You paint all LRM play with the brush of the assault-weight ‘Make It Rain’ idiots who manage to completely waste half their massive overabundance of ammunition per match and score well only against other ignoramuses who can’t deal with LRM fire to save their lives. Allow me to tell you my own RoE for LRM machines:

-Engagements against anything I can’t see with my own two eyes are harassment fire only – indirect fire is always assumed to be largely a waste of ammunition and only good for keeping someone’s head down or scoring assists at absolute best.

-Engagements beyond roughly seven hundred meters’ range are generally a waste of ammunition, even with the missile velocity increases. If they’re out of range of your TAG, they’re out of your effective range and should be engaged only if you don’t have any better options.

-LRM launchers are restricted solely to BattleMechs of mine that can break eighty klicks or up. Anything slower is deemed too slow to properly reposition around the fight for optimal firing angles. Being honest, ninety-plus is preferred, but eighty-plus has proven itself workable in my Thunderbolt.

-Salvos much over thirty missiles are generally wastes of time. If you’re cramming sixty tubes of LRM launcher into your ‘Mech, you’re sacrificing too much other necessary equipment and ammunition. Beagle probes, TAG, and Artemis are all pretty much required equipment, and getting all of that, plus ammunition, plus the LRM launchers themselves, into a ‘Mech capable of breaking 80+ klicks forces certain restraints in both one’s choice of base chassis to build on, as well as how much weight of fire one can reasonably make use of. There are a few outlier exceptions – the BLR-1S with 2xALRM-15 and 2xALRM-5, hoofing it around on a 385XL or higher engine, can qualify as ‘close enough’ in some fights but doesn’t really feel any more powerful/useful to me than my lighter machines.

Some of us out here prize mobility, accuracy, and the decisive advantages those traits bring over the lumbering abortion that is the STK-3F©. Trebuchets or Shadow Hawks are the LRM machines you should respect, not Stalkers. I enjoy the unique feel of LRM combat, and I also enjoy the challenge of trying to do well with a machine that cannot directly control where its fire lands, and which also attracts enemy attention the way a bottle of suntan oil next to a beautiful woman on the beach attracts creepers. If you don’t particularly care for the style, that’s your choice and you’re welcome to it, but please don’t relegate all of us to the same bucket as the 3F© maroons, nor dismiss us with stuff like “LRMs should be a Support weapon ONLY and have no business being an actual threat to one’s enemies a primary armament.”

After all, if that’s what you want LRM launchers to be, then let’s talk about cutting the weight of all current LRM launcher systems in half and doubling their ammo per ton, at the obvious expense of warhead damage. See, that way we actually have the weight we need to bring direct-fire armaments alongside LRM systems and not be wasting our time on both sides. Odds of that happening, however? Well, I’ll let you do the math on that one.

Again, not attacking anyone here. Merely trying to point out that some folks enjoy bringing the same level of thought and effort to their LRM machines as others do to direct-fire ‘Mechs. Assuming that all of us Lurmishers out there are just as braindead as the 3F© players is rather deeply offensive, mang. I hate that ‘Mechstrosity with a blazing passion and wish heartily that PGI had never inflicted it on the world.

[DivineEvil]

Ustarish, on 20 March 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

now everyone will start taking ams to the battlefield.
lurms wont be able to hit anything at all.
lrm boats pilots will cry again that they are buged and underpowered.
circle will continue.

i dont think lrm needed buff.
it just wasnt a weapon designed for point and click action.

Fine with AMS. It was pretty much nonexistent before, since taking cover was so easy.
Nobody will cry. People will just get bored with them and start using them as support weapons for other mechs. Mech with missile-based hardpoint layout wouldn't feel inferior to ballistic ones anymore.

It wasn't? What was it then? For me it was "waste half of mech's tonnage to make 0.2 of the potential damage with more dangerous ammunition" weapon. Or more like "blast those missile slots and fit as many lasers and heatsinks instead" weapon.

[Master Maniac]

1453 R, on 20 March 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

Maniac, please pause for a moment.

Stop.

Breathe.

Now. Think for a moment about what you’re doing. It is, in fact, the same as what you accused me of doing – using the lowest class of players as an example of how the weapon is “supposed” to function, and then denigrating that.

Certainly, skillful play is more than possible with direct-fire weapons. If it was not this game would be in a sorry state indeed, and in fact I respect the skill and acumen of truly fantastic direct-fire shots quite a bit. The point I was trying to raise is that you seem to equate the ignoramuses standing around in STK-3F©s vomiting missiles at every red box they say as both “DA NORM”, as well as “DA HEIGHT OF LRM TAKTIX”.

This is a gross overexaggeration and a critical misrepresentation and you know it as well as I do.

You paint all LRM play with the brush of the assault-weight ‘Make It Rain’ idiots who manage to completely waste half their massive overabundance of ammunition per match and score well only against other ignoramuses who can’t deal with LRM fire to save their lives. Allow me to tell you my own RoE for LRM machines:

-Engagements against anything I can’t see with my own two eyes are harassment fire only – indirect fire is always assumed to be largely a waste of ammunition and only good for keeping someone’s head down or scoring assists at absolute best.

-Engagements beyond roughly seven hundred meters’ range are generally a waste of ammunition, even with the missile velocity increases. If they’re out of range of your TAG, they’re out of your effective range and should be engaged only if you don’t have any better options.

-LRM launchers are restricted solely to BattleMechs of mine that can break eighty klicks or up. Anything slower is deemed too slow to properly reposition around the fight for optimal firing angles. Being honest, ninety-plus is preferred, but eighty-plus has proven itself workable in my Thunderbolt.

-Salvos much over thirty missiles are generally wastes of time. If you’re cramming sixty tubes of LRM launcher into your ‘Mech, you’re sacrificing too much other necessary equipment and ammunition. Beagle probes, TAG, and Artemis are all pretty much required equipment, and getting all of that, plus ammunition, plus the LRM launchers themselves, into a ‘Mech capable of breaking 80+ klicks forces certain restraints in both one’s choice of base chassis to build on, as well as how much weight of fire one can reasonably make use of. There are a few outlier exceptions – the BLR-1S with 2xALRM-15 and 2xALRM-5, hoofing it around on a 385XL or higher engine, can qualify as ‘close enough’ in some fights but doesn’t really feel any more powerful/useful to me than my lighter machines.

Some of us out here prize mobility, accuracy, and the decisive advantages those traits bring over the lumbering abortion that is the STK-3F©. Trebuchets or Shadow Hawks are the LRM machines you should respect, not Stalkers. I enjoy the unique feel of LRM combat, and I also enjoy the challenge of trying to do well with a machine that cannot directly control where its fire lands, and which also attracts enemy attention the way a bottle of suntan oil next to a beautiful woman on the beach attracts creepers. If you don’t particularly care for the style, that’s your choice and you’re welcome to it, but please don’t relegate all of us to the same bucket as the 3F© maroons, nor dismiss us with stuff like “LRMs should be a Support weapon ONLY and have no business being an actual threat to one’s enemies a primary armament.”

After all, if that’s what you want LRM launchers to be, then let’s talk about cutting the weight of all current LRM launcher systems in half and doubling their ammo per ton, at the obvious expense of warhead damage. See, that way we actually have the weight we need to bring direct-fire armaments alongside LRM systems and not be wasting our time on both sides. Odds of that happening, however? Well, I’ll let you do the math on that one.

Again, not attacking anyone here. Merely trying to point out that some folks enjoy bringing the same level of thought and effort to their LRM machines as others do to direct-fire ‘Mechs. Assuming that all of us Lurmishers out there are just as braindead as the 3F© players is rather deeply offensive, mang. I hate that ‘Mechstrosity with a blazing passion and wish heartily that PGI had never inflicted it on the world.

Didn't even bother to read that wall. I might, but I stopped at the first bit.

I am not using the WAY people are using LRMs as the crux of my argument. I am complaining about the weapon itself as being broken, bad, and ill thought out. It's not the WAY it's being used. It's the nature of the weapon that's the problem. By extension, I take offense to the people who are set deeply to using said broken, spammy weapon and take any attempts to analyze the flaws of LRMs in general as an excuse to rant and rail about how any opposition to their "superior intellectual tactics" comes from "brainless CoD players."

This community is beyond redemption. If I could get a refund for the ~$200 I (once happily) blew on this miserable product, I would do so in a fingersnap.

EDIT: Okay, now that I've gotten that frustration off of my shoulders, I went ahead and read your carefully-considered response completely. Thank you for constructing such a response. I did not mean to imply that I didn't appreciate it. I do. I will respond shortly.

Edited by Master Maniac, 20 March 2014 - 04:13 PM.

[Daekar]

I actually like the suggestion you termed "Brilliant," even if there are some things in there that would make me a little wary. The "fire and forget" aspect scares the dickens out of me, actually, because it would negate a very significant portion of what we currently use as LRM cover... since most cover is horizontal rather than vertical, self-tracking missiles would be completely OP unless they were matched with a very significant trajectory flattening. It would render LRMs almost literally guaranteed damage, especially on slow mechs. I like the spread-unless-reticle-held mechanic, as long as it was implemented in such a way that smaller LRM salvos don't become worthless.

It sounds workable but some major adjustments would be necessary to prevent another LRMageddon. I wonder if they can implement the spread/reticle interaction without using fire and forget mechanics?

[Nightcrept]

Ustarish, on 20 March 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

now everyone will start taking ams to the battlefield.
lurms wont be able to hit anything at all.
lrm boats pilots will cry again that they are buged and underpowered.
circle will continue.

i dont think lrm needed buff.
it just wasnt a weapon designed for point and click action.

Once upon a time eveyone did take ams. If you didn't then you did so to get either extra speed, ammo or firepower. But if you didn't take ams you also knew you where at the mercy of lrms.

Then lrms got thrown into the garbage heap until they could be fixed. So what most players have gotten used to is a purposely broken weapon system. That caused the game meta to go all weird with mindless brawling and poptarts and pgi trying to balance against the broken system. (Which i predicated when pgi nerfed splash damage and got heckled for by the trolls.).

I also predicated that new players and some old players would get used to the broken mechanic and scream bloody murder when pgi attempted to correct the balance.

lol....so pgi I would like my cookie now.