142 replies to this topic

[NautilusCommand]

Let's make this short and sweet. LRM's Angle of Attack is kinda ridiculous, They fly up and over everything and make some maps unplayable in pug matches. The amount of times I still get hit while behind buildings is some next level BS.

[FupDup]

The big issue with Lurms in general is that they can sometimes to be good at indirect fire (target not in LoS), but they also simultaneously tend to be really bad at direct fire (target is in LoS).

[Captain Stiffy]

LRMs are finally in a good place. The constant whining is now unwarranted. Stop.

[NautilusCommand]

They went from a weapon (now this is the part I bring up table top) that you fill in some tons. They helped you do damage while closing distance, but now they are a primary weapon for builds. I'd be satisfied with a much lower AoA and a reduce the turn rate of them.

Captain Stiffy, on 27 November 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

LRMs are finally in a good place. The constant whining is now unwarranted. Stop.

Look, you could buff the damage. I couldn't care less, but it's the angle of attack I problems with when I'm in cover and still get hit that's "whining". Ok, sure.

[LordBraxton]

Id prefer them to be stronger when direct, weaker when indirect, as well.

[Sjorpha]

There is a gazillion LRM whiner threads already, post in one of them instead of spamming threads.

Edited by Sjorpha, 27 November 2014 - 07:40 PM.

[NautilusCommand]

LordBraxton, on 27 November 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

Id prefer them to be stronger when direct, weaker when indirect, as well.

With a lower AoA it'd be better in a direct roll, a hell of a lot better. It wouldn't be the "let's sit in the back" play style weapon any more, or it would at least lessen that.

FFS, I'm not trying to whine. I just thought it was a valid point that the AoA is too high.

[Reitrix]

NautilusCommand, on 27 November 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

With a lower AoA it'd be better in a direct roll, a hell of a lot better. It wouldn't be the "let's sit in the back" play style weapon any more, or it would at least lessen that.

FFS, I'm not trying to whine. I just thought it was a valid point that the AoA is too high.

A more shallow angle out of the launcher, especially in Direct Fire engagements would also make the LRMs 10x more useful in places like Crimson ...

Getting hit while having your face firmly planted into a building that should be providing cover just feels crap.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

NautilusCommand, on 27 November 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Let's make this short and sweet. LRM's Angle of Attack is kinda ridiculous, They fly up and over everything and make some maps unplayable in pug matches. The amount of times I still get hit while behind buildings is some next level BS.

I take it youre new. In CB they came in at a 90 degree angle. They HAVE been nerfed the way you say, REPEATEDLY.

So, no.

[Urdnot Mau]

I thought OP was going to complain about hitting legs when running away from them. Is it just me that gets annoyed by it? never saw someone complain about it

[Tarogato]

I agree with literally everything stated in this thread so far.

Yes, like Stiffy says, I think LRMs are fine right now, but I don't see the hurt in tuning them and I really like idea of decreasing the angle of attack and turning radius for indirect fire and I'm not at all opposed to increasing the AoA and turning radius for direct fire.

Indirect is indeed stronger than it should be compared to direct fire.

That said, they're fairly well balanced right now.

[topgun505]

Sorry. No. I call BS here. The LRMs do not have any angle. You can either see a target, or not. If you can see it, or someone is spotting for indirect, then you can hit it. The only time cover comes into play aside from to-hit mods is partial cover and that only protects your legs.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 November 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

I take it youre new. In CB they came in at a 90 degree angle. They HAVE been nerfed the way you say, REPEATEDLY.

So, no.

[luxebo]

NautilusCommand, on 27 November 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Let's make this short and sweet. LRM's Angle of Attack is kinda ridiculous, They fly up and over everything and make some maps unplayable in pug matches. The amount of times I still get hit while behind buildings is some next level BS.

Agreed, in pug matches LRMs are ridiculous. In group matches, LRMs are very weak, but LRMs just kick so many rear ends in pug matches since pugs just run from lrms. Making them more direct fire is a ton better in general, while lessening indirect fire. For those thinking OH MY GOD STOP NERFING LRMs THEY ARE SO WEAK provide a few good reasons that they shouldn't get this kind of buff/nerf balance (it's both a buff and a nerf in general). Plus LRMs need to be a support weapon not the crutch weapon in pugs.

[zortesh]

People complain about the angle, but the angle is quite reasonable, and people fail to realize there being flanked and lrmed from the side, so instead they merely scream "op angle goes over cover" again and again.

[mrpetzold]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 27 November 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

I take it youre new. In CB they came in at a 90 degree angle. They HAVE been nerfed the way you say, REPEATEDLY.

So, no.

You are kidding, right? I really hope it for your own sake.
I know you are a newb-lurmer, and probably the most "famous" of them all. "I take it youre new". Seriously..

[Mystere]

NautilusCommand, on 27 November 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Let's make this short and sweet. LRM's Angle of Attack is kinda ridiculous, They fly up and over everything and make some maps unplayable in pug matches. The amount of times I still get hit while behind buildings is some next level BS.

Then go join a group. Don't ruin a weapon just because there is no one to carry you.

NautilusCommand, on 27 November 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

Look, you could buff the damage. I couldn't care less, but it's the angle of attack I problems with when I'm in cover and still get hit that's "whining". Ok, sure.

I seriously doubt you will stop whining when the damage is buffed.

Urdnot Mau, on 27 November 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

I thought OP was going to complain about hitting legs when running away from them. Is it just me that gets annoyed by it? never saw someone complain about it

Someone already did.

One of the responses was that it is good missile design to skim the ground when target is lost.

Edited by Mystere, 27 November 2014 - 09:20 PM.

[Urdnot Mau]

zortesh, on 27 November 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

People complain about the angle, but the angle is quite reasonable, and people fail to realize there being flanked and lrmed from the side, so instead they merely scream "op angle goes over cover" again and again.

It is not reasonable when you get legged in a heavy by 2-3 salvos of a LRM boat while you're running for cover

It's ridiculous

[Abivard]

Urdnot Mau, on 27 November 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

It is not reasonable when you get legged in a heavy by 2-3 salvos of a LRM boat while you're running for cover

It's ridiculous

You think it is unreasonable to expose your legs to fire for over 10 seconds and suffer damage?

Just how much time under fire do you think should pass before you take real damage? 30 seconds? 45 seconds? A minute? never?

[zortesh]

*thinks of all the times I've legged people in 1-2 salvos of directfire for lolz*

I do find it weird lrms hitting legs on a heavy, usally only happens if you jump alot, thou i have seen osme freak leg destruction's recently... thinking someones been shooting your legs as your being hit by lrms.

[Mercules]

mrpetzold, on 27 November 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

You are kidding, right? I really hope it for your own sake.
I know you are a newb-lurmer, and probably the most "famous" of them all. "I take it youre new". Seriously..

No, in Closed Beta they had a much steeper angle; they also did more damage and flew faster. They did a more dramatic swooping effect that looked nicer too, but they removed that. So way back when some of us learned how not to be hit by them they were actually more powerful than they currently are. No really, they are pretty weak right now.

Urdnot Mau, on 27 November 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

It is not reasonable when you get legged in a heavy by 2-3 salvos of a LRM boat while you're running for cover

It's ridiculous

Hmmmm... How many Dual Gauss salvos would it take to leg you? How many LPL Salvos?