373 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 04 April 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

1) Other folks here and I seem to be having a proper conversation, right now.

No, not really. But you can keep pretending that.

[Roland]

Roadkill and I seem to be having a totally civil discussion, man.

At this point, I already appologized to you for being rude. There's nothing more I can do if you want to continue being mad about it.

[Trauglodyte]

Roland, on 04 April 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

Well, it would suggest that perhaps you have limited experience in what we're discussing here. Generally, using LRM's indirectly is a pretty massive aspect of their use, since it's their unique strength. And given that we're talking about indirect fire of LRM's using a spotter, it's kind of central to the discussion.

It may be that you are perhaps a bit too close to the problem, and are letting your emotions cloud your judgement here.
Now, I'll admit, I was a bit abrasive earlier... Generally, because I have little patience for folks who use guided weapons but then try to trivialize skill used in UNguided weapons by calling them "point and click". So that caused me to be a bit less friendly than usual, and I appologize for that.

But at this point, where folks are saying that predictions of inherently unpredictable things constitutes a "skill", it's just silly.. and I think if you step back, you'll see that quite clearly.

If you are firing missiles indirectly, and the spotter switches targets for no good reason, it's not an indication that you made a MISTAKE in choosing to fire those LRM's. Or Asmudius' example, where he happened to get a lucky headshot on the spotter and kill him instantly. The guy firing LRM's didn't make a MISTAKE in choosing to fire them...because there's no possible way he could have predicted that Asmudius was going to get a lucky headshot.. because it was LUCK.

Put aside my prior abrasiveness, accept my appology for that, and then accept the obvious reality of what I'm saying here.

When I launch with LRMs, I use them purely as a ranged support weapon. Rarely do I drop with someone that is running as a dedicated spotter so, because of that, I don't ever run with more than 20 tubes. The only mech that I have that has more than that is my Awesome 8V and it only has 30 (soon to be changed to either just 15 or removing the LRMs for SRMs or just selling it entirely). In either case, unless I have that pure scout/spotter rolling with either NARC, TAG, or both, I'm not firing indirectly. The only chance that I might is if one of my lance mates, whom would only ever be a clan mate for this exercise, is brawling with a target. In that situation, I know that I'll have a solid lock throughout and can use indirect fire until I can get into LOS.

The real divide that I see here lies in overall LRM use and how people view it. Indirect fire is acceptable when a dedicated spotter/NARCer is involved. In that case, you've got someone maintaining a solid lock throughout that is telling the LRMers when to hold fire based on the target's positioning with terrain (something the firer should also be well aware) thus allowing for high percentage of missiles landing on said target. The issue lies in skilled use of spotting, t2 tech, and indirect fire versus idiots spamming missiles non-stop in the back at the very glimpe of an indirect target lock. Nobody likes those people and they're terrible for the game but they're no different than the wanna-bes building poptart mechs and trying to emulate what the top tier guys are doing.

The real skill with LRMs, though, is on Mediums and fast Heavies using their speed to weave in and out of range utilizing LRMs as moderate range (400ish meters) brawling weapons. Furthermore, using them in conjunction with poptarting allows you to get into close range, utilize terrain to protect yourself, poptart enough to fire your primary FLD weapons, and add a little LRM action for padded damage without massive heat. I pop-missile in my Griffin (LRMs) and will do so with my Shadowhawk and Wolverine (SRMs) when I'm capable.

People speak of twitch skill with DFWs and it is extremely important to have that. I don't do well in that area and I down right suck going 150-170kph and keeping beam weapons on a single body location. I give all the props in the world to the badass Light pilots that are dodging, ducking, diping, diving, and dodging while using JJs and keeping their damage on a single location. And I compliment those that know how much of their mech to expose to adequately poptart or ridgehump. I make up for my lack of twitch skills in other areas, or I try to. For me, I can't out muscle my opponents so I have to mix things up to get the job done in a different way.

[Solis Obscuri]

Prezimonto, on 04 April 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

I'd much prefer if streaks and SRM's could both be fired off a lock, but only travel in about a 30° arc off the centerline of fire and bone target. SRM's would be slow, and could be fired without targeting for terrible spread, SSRM's should do less damage and travel at least 2x as fast to the target, but can't be fired without a lock. The weapons shouldn't heat seek and still only hit if you've got a target that stays right in front of you.

Seriously, I'd love to have MW3 style streaks. They were just fun to watch!

[Fut]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

RamsoPanzer, on 30 March 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

Well, if there comes a day, when you actually need to aim in order to use your LRMs, then you can complain, until that day, the only thing that LRMs need are nerfs.

Stop the whinging about the "church of skill" arguments. Real skill comes in learning to adapt, not how fast one can click a pixel on a jumbo monitor with a variable DPI mouse, with perfect convergence.

This. A million times this...

[Roland]

Quote

People speak of twitch skill with DFWs and it is extremely important to have that. I don't do well in that area and I down right suck going 150-170kph and keeping beam weapons on a single body location. I give all the props in the world to the badass Light pilots that are dodging, ducking, diping, diving, and dodging while using JJs and keeping their damage on a single location. And I compliment those that know how much of their mech to expose to adequately poptart or ridgehump. I make up for my lack of twitch skills in other areas, or I try to. For me, I can't out muscle my opponents so I have to mix things up to get the job done in a different way.

And there's nothing wrong with any of that. Mechwarrior, while a shooter, has never solely focused on twitch skills. In the past, NR combat tended to be more akin to armor warfare, where positioning was of critical importance.

For most of MWO's existence, this aspect was largely nerfed as a result of the terrible design of the Assault game mode, which ended up limiting most maneuvering, but skirmish did effectively re-inject some of this into the game (although perhaps at too late a point to save things).

Back in MW4, there were folks like Stalker who while certainly an extremely skilled pilot and gunner, wasn't the BEST when it came to those things.. His skills lied in his ability to function extremely effectively as a field commander, as he had a great grasp of the fundamental principles of maneuver warfare as practiced by the US Marine Corps. As a result, fighting against his unit was always challenging for reasons which were generally very different compared to fighting against other top tier units.

I honestly did not intend to suggest that twitch skills are all that matter, and appologize for giving that impression. I think that perhaps it stemmed from me initially over-reacting to folks who attempted to trivialize things like gunnery skills. Even though I myself am really not the best in terms of gunnery skills, I tend to dislike it when folks downplay the importance of certain fundamental things like good gunnery, because at its heart Mechwarrior is a shooter, and I really would never want to see it made into a game that didn't reward good shooter skills.

But at the same time, I realize that I then gave the impression that I was myself minimizing those other skills, which created some of the backlash and conflict in the thread, and I appologize for that, because just as I wouldn't want MWO to abandon the importance of core shooter skills, I equally would want to avoid it becoming distilled into a game which ONLY had those skills and abandoned all of the other more complex tactical aspects of gameplay.

[Trauglodyte]

I didn't necessarily get that vibe. Truth be told, it is really hard to associate skill and LRMs because there are so many bad people using LRMs poorly. And, while the game has been over run for months on end by poptarting and regular use of PPCs+ACs, you could at least tell who it was that was good at aiming and those that were just trying to hop on the bandwagon. I've got a poptarting brawling Victor but I'm not going to put myself in the same level as Steel Jaguars, SWK, etc. I can replicate the action but not the overall precision (I show too much of my mechs, I miss shots that I shouldn't, and I don't pay close enough attention to JJ fuel levels).

When it comes to LRMs, you've really got to know what your target is carrying (AMS, ECM, or no), who around them has what (same as before), and you've got to anticipate their movements so that you can keep your missiles' travel time as short as possible without them closing into your deadzone after launch. You've also got to anticipate their movement and surrounding terrain and, in the case of indirect fire, who is around your spotter and where on the map your target is moving to in relation to terrain between you and your target. I've got an ALRM10 on my Griffin but I only carry one ton of ammo (bumping it up to two tons once I get 2x efficiencies unlocked). That gives me 18 pulls of the trigger and a maximum amount of damage done at 198 total. I have to maximize every shot that I take with it because I can't afford to be wasteful but I also have to realize that the damage potential is padding (not points but mech destruction capacity) for my primary weapons. It is heat efficient, range beneficial, and good for all aspects of combat due to both direct and indirect. Yet, I can't fire off all willy-nillly like what you see most people do.

The travesty is that few people, and I am by far not the best when it comes to LRMs as I'm still learning the nuances, don't see what is needed to use the system properly. They just see terribads butchering the possibilities and powerawfuls building mechs with nothing but LRMs (and no TAG, mind you) spamming away hitting nothing, getting completely shut down by ECM and making posts on this board about it, or being turned into slag by smart players cause they were too stupid to carry backup weapons. THAT is why a lot of people find LRM users to be less skilled. We get pulled down by the bottom %.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 04 April 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Roadkill and I seem to be having a totally civil discussion, man.

I think we were the whole time. A bit heated at points, but still civil. It's the only reason I kept responding - it was an interesting discussion.

I thought you were crazy for parts of it, but we stayed closer to the discussion end than the fight end of the spectrum. ;-)

So... back to the thread topic... here's what I'd do to "fix" LRMs.

1) Require TAG or Narc for indirect fire. Tag should no longer provide any bonus other than allowing for indirect fire. Narc sucks even after the improvements, so it can keep them. Realistically it needs another boost, but that's a different thread.
2) Base the impulse of LRMs on the size of the volley - a 20-tube LRM volley should rock the target more than a 5-tube LRM volley. The 6 x LRM-5 A1 is and should be a joke build, not a griefer build. But 20 LRMs in one volley should hit like a ton of bricks.
3) Base the firing arc on the mode of fire - direct fire (with LOS) should be relatively low and fast, with the idea being that the missiles will clear teammates, trees, boxes, etc, but not a moderate size building. I'd probably boost direct-fire LRM speed to 200. Indirect fire should be high and slow - they should clear just about anything but a skyscraper, but should take long enough to reach the target that the spotter actually has to do some work to keep them tagged. Dropping indirect-fire LRM speed back to 120 sounds about right.
4) Get rid of Advanced Target Decay. Yes, I said it. Maintain your LOS (or have a spotter do it) or lose lock.
5) Increase the spread of indirect fire missiles, but tighten it back up for Artemis indirect fire. Which, yes, means that Artemis should be modified to work for both LOS and non-LOS missile fire. The point of indirect fire missiles is more area denial and splatter than actual Mech killing.
6) Decrease the spread of direct fire missiles. With all the other modifications, direct fire missiles should be deadly as all {Scrap} since they're heavy and slow to cycle. Direct fire with Artemis should basically hit with the full force of the volley and only spread across the torsos.
7) Improve (or nerf) AMS to balance direct fire missiles. AMS should probably be a percentage decrease, not a fixed number of missiles decrease, but that may be too difficult to tune. If the tuning for direct fire missiles makes AMS godlike vs indirect fire missiles... well, so be it. Indirect fire isn't meant to be deadly, just annoying and somewhat useful.

[Wolfways]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

I think we were the whole time. A bit heated at points, but still civil. It's the only reason I kept responding - it was an interesting discussion.

I thought you were crazy for parts of it, but we stayed closer to the discussion end than the fight end of the spectrum. ;-)

So... back to the thread topic... here's what I'd do to "fix" LRMs.

1) Require TAG or Narc for indirect fire. Tag should no longer provide any bonus other than allowing for indirect fire. Narc sucks even after the improvements, so it can keep them. Realistically it needs another boost, but that's a different thread.
2) Base the impulse of LRMs on the size of the volley - a 20-tube LRM volley should rock the target more than a 5-tube LRM volley. The 6 x LRM-5 A1 is and should be a joke build, not a griefer build. But 20 LRMs in one volley should hit like a ton of bricks.
3) Base the firing arc on the mode of fire - direct fire (with LOS) should be relatively low and fast, with the idea being that the missiles will clear teammates, trees, boxes, etc, but not a moderate size building. I'd probably boost direct-fire LRM speed to 200. Indirect fire should be high and slow - they should clear just about anything but a skyscraper, but should take long enough to reach the target that the spotter actually has to do some work to keep them tagged. Dropping indirect-fire LRM speed back to 120 sounds about right.
4) Get rid of Advanced Target Decay. Yes, I said it. Maintain your LOS (or have a spotter do it) or lose lock.
5) Increase the spread of indirect fire missiles, but tighten it back up for Artemis indirect fire. Which, yes, means that Artemis should be modified to work for both LOS and non-LOS missile fire. The point of indirect fire missiles is more area denial and splatter than actual Mech killing.
6) Decrease the spread of direct fire missiles. With all the other modifications, direct fire missiles should be deadly as all {Scrap} since they're heavy and slow to cycle. Direct fire with Artemis should basically hit with the full force of the volley and only spread across the torsos.
7) Improve (or nerf) AMS to balance direct fire missiles. AMS should probably be a percentage decrease, not a fixed number of missiles decrease, but that may be too difficult to tune. If the tuning for direct fire missiles makes AMS godlike vs indirect fire missiles... well, so be it. Indirect fire isn't meant to be deadly, just annoying and somewhat useful.

Also fix ECM and make LRM's fire-and-forget

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

I thought you were crazy for parts of it, but we stayed closer to the discussion end than the fight end of the spectrum. ;-)

SOS UR FACE

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

1) Require TAG or Narc for indirect fire. Tag should no longer provide any bonus other than allowing for indirect fire. Narc sucks even after the improvements, so it can keep them. Realistically it needs another boost, but that's a different thread.
2) Base the impulse of LRMs on the size of the volley - a 20-tube LRM volley should rock the target more than a 5-tube LRM volley. The 6 x LRM-5 A1 is and should be a joke build, not a griefer build. But 20 LRMs in one volley should hit like a ton of bricks.
3) Base the firing arc on the mode of fire - direct fire (with LOS) should be relatively low and fast, with the idea being that the missiles will clear teammates, trees, boxes, etc, but not a moderate size building. I'd probably boost direct-fire LRM speed to 200. Indirect fire should be high and slow - they should clear just about anything but a skyscraper, but should take long enough to reach the target that the spotter actually has to do some work to keep them tagged. Dropping indirect-fire LRM speed back to 120 sounds about right.
4) Get rid of Advanced Target Decay. Yes, I said it. Maintain your LOS (or have a spotter do it) or lose lock.
5) Increase the spread of indirect fire missiles, but tighten it back up for Artemis indirect fire. Which, yes, means that Artemis should be modified to work for both LOS and non-LOS missile fire. The point of indirect fire missiles is more area denial and splatter than actual Mech killing.
6) Decrease the spread of direct fire missiles. With all the other modifications, direct fire missiles should be deadly as all {Scrap} since they're heavy and slow to cycle. Direct fire with Artemis should basically hit with the full force of the volley and only spread across the torsos.
7) Improve (or nerf) AMS to balance direct fire missiles. AMS should probably be a percentage decrease, not a fixed number of missiles decrease, but that may be too difficult to tune. If the tuning for direct fire missiles makes AMS godlike vs indirect fire missiles... well, so be it. Indirect fire isn't meant to be deadly, just annoying and somewhat useful.

I would tend to agree with all of these changes.

The biggest thing, really, is number 1... The current indirect fire system is just too hard to balance.

Another thing I would tend to do, would be to make it such that once a missile is fired, the shooter really shouldn't need to keep lock. Hell, you could even slow them down then. So a person could potentially get to cover, but simply breaking LOS wouldn't just make all those missiles shot totally wasted.

If I get a lock on you and fire, those missiles should hit you unless you can actually get to cover. That's how they worked in closed beta, and it was better I think... If you removed indirect locks (except for with NARC's and Tag), I think they'd be quite balanced.

One of the major problems in Closed beta was that you didn't need to keep lock, could always get indirect locks, and the missile flight path had them coming almost directly down on mechs, so you couldn't really get to cover. Oh, and they would also headshot atlases every time, and would also leg light mechs constantly due to the way splash damage was broken.

The reason balance wasn't ever really achieved was that PGI decided to not just change one or two things, but rather changed like 5 things at once, and effectively MISSED the balance point.

[Trauglodyte]

To Roadkill:

1) Yes and no; I'm all for TAG/NARC being a requirement for indirect fire but, due to the spread mechanic on the larget launchers, the bonus from TAG and NARC is necessary to ensure that you hit with anything. After doing some testing last week, it takes less volleys of 2x LRM10s to kill a stock Atlas from 270m than it does the 1x LRM20. Same number of missiles fired but much more waste on the part of the 20 with the same investment in weight. Maybe buff Artemis IV instead? Warrants more discussion but I like the indirect part.

2) Yes and totally a duh thing on PGI's part.

3) Definitely yes and something that I've been saying for a while. 5-10 degrees for LOS firing, current 60 degrees for indirect fire. The lower arc on LOS firing would also increase missile speed by reducing travel distance.

4) Eh, I like the module but it could stand to be reduced to 2 (base; currently 2.6) and 3 (advanced, currently 3.5). The biggest benefit of the module, though, is when you're LRMing in the open cause you can lock, fire, torso twist to get away from incoming damage, and then regain lock without worry of losing it the second you twist. That is, after all, the major benefit that poptarters have with DFWs.

5/6) All rack spread needs to be based on the 15 with a bump to Artemis (see point 1)

7) AMS needs a rework in general but I don't have any concepts on how to fix it.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 04 April 2014 - 12:16 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

I think we were the whole time. A bit heated at points, but still civil. It's the only reason I kept responding - it was an interesting discussion.

I thought you were crazy for parts of it, but we stayed closer to the discussion end than the fight end of the spectrum. ;-)

So... back to the thread topic... here's what I'd do to "fix" LRMs.

1) Require TAG or Narc for indirect fire. Tag should no longer provide any bonus other than allowing for indirect fire. Narc sucks even after the improvements, so it can keep them. Realistically it needs another boost, but that's a different thread.
2) Base the impulse of LRMs on the size of the volley - a 20-tube LRM volley should rock the target more than a 5-tube LRM volley. The 6 x LRM-5 A1 is and should be a joke build, not a griefer build. But 20 LRMs in one volley should hit like a ton of bricks.
3) Base the firing arc on the mode of fire - direct fire (with LOS) should be relatively low and fast, with the idea being that the missiles will clear teammates, trees, boxes, etc, but not a moderate size building. I'd probably boost direct-fire LRM speed to 200. Indirect fire should be high and slow - they should clear just about anything but a skyscraper, but should take long enough to reach the target that the spotter actually has to do some work to keep them tagged. Dropping indirect-fire LRM speed back to 120 sounds about right.
4) Get rid of Advanced Target Decay. Yes, I said it. Maintain your LOS (or have a spotter do it) or lose lock.
5) Increase the spread of indirect fire missiles, but tighten it back up for Artemis indirect fire. Which, yes, means that Artemis should be modified to work for both LOS and non-LOS missile fire. The point of indirect fire missiles is more area denial and splatter than actual Mech killing.
6) Decrease the spread of direct fire missiles. With all the other modifications, direct fire missiles should be deadly as all {Scrap} since they're heavy and slow to cycle. Direct fire with Artemis should basically hit with the full force of the volley and only spread across the torsos.
7) Improve (or nerf) AMS to balance direct fire missiles. AMS should probably be a percentage decrease, not a fixed number of missiles decrease, but that may be too difficult to tune. If the tuning for direct fire missiles makes AMS godlike vs indirect fire missiles... well, so be it. Indirect fire isn't meant to be deadly, just annoying and somewhat useful.

TAG should still break ECM for direct fire

[Roadkill]

I'm not sure about fire and forget. I actually like that the missile firer has to maintain lock - it really helps differentiate missiles from direct fire weapons. I generally just carry a couple of direct fire weapons on my missile boats and fire those while I'm maintaining lock.

Maybe TAG could allow for fire and forget in order to help make it distinct from Narc?

(And yes, TAG should still break ECM. I only meant for it to drop the increased damage tracking bonus.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

TAG should still break ECM for direct fire

And at all ranges. Why do we still have TAG being non-functional when within the 180m ECM bubble?

[Roland]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

I'm not sure about fire and forget. I actually like that the missile firer has to maintain lock - it really helps differentiate missiles from direct fire weapons. I generally just carry a couple of direct fire weapons on my missile boats and fire those while I'm maintaining lock.

Maybe TAG could allow for fire and forget in order to help make it distinct from Narc?

(And yes, TAG should still break ECM. I only meant for it to drop the increased damage tracking bonus.

Even with Fire and Forget, missile boats are still differentiated from direct fire.... because it still takes a while for the missiles to get there.

But allowing them to be fire and forget means that a missile carrier can engage in direct combat without being stuck constantly exposing his face to incoming fire.. The missile carrier can actually use cover, soak damage, etc.

[Harathan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 April 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

No, not really. But you can keep pretending that.

If they weren't I wouldn't still be here reading it. Give it a rest mate.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Harathan, on 04 April 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

If they weren't I wouldn't still be here reading it. Give it a rest mate.

You could've read the first 5 back and forth posts and been done with it.

Don't waste your time.

And please don't use "mate" if you are from Southern California.

[Trauglodyte]

Roland, on 04 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Even with Fire and Forget, missile boats are still differentiated from direct fire.... because it still takes a while for the missiles to get there.

But allowing them to be fire and forget means that a missile carrier can engage in direct combat without being stuck constantly exposing his face to incoming fire.. The missile carrier can actually use cover, soak damage, etc.

What is AMS only impacted indirect fire? And then, to counter this, lock on times were increased by like 50-75% for each additional launcher after two (woohoo, GHOST LOCK!!!)?

Nicholas Carlyle, on 04 April 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

You could've read the first 5 back and forth posts and been done with it.

Don't waste your time.

And please don't use "mate" if you are from Southern California.

He could call you brohemoth!

[Solis Obscuri]

Roadkill, on 04 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

I think we were the whole time. A bit heated at points, but still civil. It's the only reason I kept responding - it was an interesting discussion.

I thought you were crazy for parts of it, but we stayed closer to the discussion end than the fight end of the spectrum. ;-)

So... back to the thread topic... here's what I'd do to "fix" LRMs.

1) Require TAG or Narc for indirect fire. Tag should no longer provide any bonus other than allowing for indirect fire. Narc sucks even after the improvements, so it can keep them. Realistically it needs another boost, but that's a different thread.
2) Base the impulse of LRMs on the size of the volley - a 20-tube LRM volley should rock the target more than a 5-tube LRM volley. The 6 x LRM-5 A1 is and should be a joke build, not a griefer build. But 20 LRMs in one volley should hit like a ton of bricks.
3) Base the firing arc on the mode of fire - direct fire (with LOS) should be relatively low and fast, with the idea being that the missiles will clear teammates, trees, boxes, etc, but not a moderate size building. I'd probably boost direct-fire LRM speed to 200. Indirect fire should be high and slow - they should clear just about anything but a skyscraper, but should take long enough to reach the target that the spotter actually has to do some work to keep them tagged. Dropping indirect-fire LRM speed back to 120 sounds about right.
4) Get rid of Advanced Target Decay. Yes, I said it. Maintain your LOS (or have a spotter do it) or lose lock.
5) Increase the spread of indirect fire missiles, but tighten it back up for Artemis indirect fire. Which, yes, means that Artemis should be modified to work for both LOS and non-LOS missile fire. The point of indirect fire missiles is more area denial and splatter than actual Mech killing.
6) Decrease the spread of direct fire missiles. With all the other modifications, direct fire missiles should be deadly as all {Scrap} since they're heavy and slow to cycle. Direct fire with Artemis should basically hit with the full force of the volley and only spread across the torsos.
7) Improve (or nerf) AMS to balance direct fire missiles. AMS should probably be a percentage decrease, not a fixed number of missiles decrease, but that may be too difficult to tune. If the tuning for direct fire missiles makes AMS godlike vs indirect fire missiles... well, so be it. Indirect fire isn't meant to be deadly, just annoying and somewhat useful.

1) I'm leaning towards "no" just because it makes the fire support so extremely dependent not just on his spotters playing smart, but also coming with the right equipment. I'd rather see indirect fire spreads expanded considerably when no TAG or Narc is in use, and tightened to their current normal pattern when TAG or Narc is used by the spotter. And in either event, I'd like to see the Narc/TAG bonuses increased for spotters - they're worth their weight in gold, but currently the rewards system is set up to basically just encourage people to bring assaults. And why do you think Narc sucks? I've loved it since the buff - fun way to turn off ECM for a bit.

2) Agree 1000%. And dear god, turn down the impulse on Streaks!

3) I agree, LRMs fired direct should move low, fast and flat, but fired indirect they should arc lazily while they try to find the target. Actually, don't real-world missiles already do this in some case (Javelin, Hellfire)? This sounds spot-on.

4) Or make it only work if you were the one spotting the target. As it is, target decay is really one of those "how the hell would this thing work?" modules, but it would make more sense as a spotter's tool than one used by the fire-support in the rear.

5) Artemis shouldn't work for indirect fire. It's already valuable stacking with TAG in direct fire mode, and will be even more valuable if direct-fire missiles gain speed, IMO.

6) I think current spreads are pretty ok, honestly. In BT, the trade-off with missile systems was always that they could do very good damage/weight and be heat efficient, but at the cost of variable damage and spread. The current spread set up is really pretty decent for direct fire, IMO.

7) I actually think AMS is in a pretty good place - it's worth taking, especially if you're slow, but it won't save you from everything if you put yourself on an island. I wouldn't mess with it at this point.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roland, on 04 April 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Even with Fire and Forget, missile boats are still differentiated from direct fire.... because it still takes a while for the missiles to get there.

But allowing them to be fire and forget means that a missile carrier can engage in direct combat without being stuck constantly exposing his face to incoming fire.. The missile carrier can actually use cover, soak damage, etc.

true, but I feel those are the "skill" balances on makes for the indirect fire capability in the first place. Maybe F&F when one has a LoS lock, but not a spotter lock?