146 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

[Scout Derek]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

k

[kf envy]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

why y not use LRMs then?

[KraftySOT]

I completely missed it because ive never used LRMs. What was it? I thought it was a bug?

[Juodas Varnas]

KraftySOT, on 18 March 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

I completely missed it because ive never used LRMs. What was it? I thought it was a bug?

Well, it basically needed the person to aim at the enemy mech to gain the lock-on, instead of aiming somewhere in the general direction of the enemy.

I, to be honest, kind of liked the way it worked. Felt more involved and actually more *fun* to use the LRMs.

[DasSibby]

If only they had kept this....

Part of me hopes that this was somehow a secret PGI test to see if LRMs could be changed...

[Voivode]

It was a bug that broke lock if you took the cross hairs off the center of the mech. Hotpatch is fixing it along with some other stuff.

I sort of agree with the OP, but I would prefer if the lock-on remained as it has and the speed was buffed at the cost of longer cooldowns. Make LRMs useful, but slow firing (I mean, it's gotta take a little bit to move 60 missiles from ammo bins into the launchers, right?)

Additionally, I'd prefer Artemis didn't just tighten the shot group but instead allowed you to toggle different flight paths. Something like a toggle that chooses a slight arc, a medium arc, or a high arc for the flight path. That way LRMs, while not taking "aiming" skills, still require a little bit of thought on how best to deliver the payload.

*shrugs*

[Artgathan]

It made LRMs even harder to use while maneuvering, forcing you to keep more of your mech exposed to the enemy to maintain a lock. also bad.The instant lock-breaking against targets that run over a rock was also bad.

Perhaps it'd be OK if LRMs were fire and forget, but as it was, it just made using LRMs require way more effort than any other weapon system, as you'd need to maintain 'good' aim for the entire duration of the flight (whereas other weapons can just snap fire).

Edited by Artgathan, 18 March 2015 - 09:23 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

kf envy, on 18 March 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

why y not use LRMs then?

I do use them. Just like I use MGs, even though they're in dire need of buffing, and just like I have the AWS-8Q in my sig, even though it's arguably one of the worst assault mechs in the game.

KraftySOT, on 18 March 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

I completely missed it because ive never used LRMs. What was it? I thought it was a bug?

You actually had to aim directly at a mech to get target lock. Your reticule had to be on the mech itself, it wasn't enough to aim anywhere inside the red box. In other words, it was a lot harder to actually get a target lock on a small mech 800 meters away. Which kind of makes sense, and actually fits well with the TT rules, as I understand it. It should be a bit tricky to get a target lock on a Locust at 800+ meters range.

For a brief period of time, LRMs actually required a modicum of aiming skills to hit with.

[dario03]

Does anybody have video of this? I've seen people say it just flat out wouldn't lock, others saying you had to keep it dead center the whole time, and others say you just had to actually have it on the mech. I forgot to check it out but the later sounds like a improvement to me.

[Lightfoot]

Juodas Varnas, on 18 March 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Well, it basically needed the person to aim at the enemy mech to gain the lock-on, instead of aiming somewhere in the general direction of the enemy.

I, to be honest, kind of liked the way it worked. Felt more involved and actually more *fun* to use the LRMs.

No it was worse than that. You could hold the cross-hairs dead-center and the lock would still drop even with line of sight and your own TAG on the target the whole time. It was a Bug.

Now what they should do is make Artemis with line of sight give the LRMs a mostly straight path to the target instead of arcing high into the air to hit a target they have their own target dot painted with. Makes no sense. LRMs have always been fire-and-forget anyway. Players in MWO are getting off easy. Most game makers don't care if newbs die while learning to play. They know it adds to player interest and game longevity.

[stjobe]

I ran a CN9-AH yesterday that has replaced one of the SRM-4s with a LRM-5 for harassing, flushing/pinning enemies, and assist farming (AC/20, 2xSRM-4, LRM-5). I noticed immediately that something had changed.

To start the lock-on sequence you had to have your arm reticule in the exact centre of the target box - any deviation and it dropped lock immediately and you had to start over.

Once lock was achieved, it could be maintained just as before, so the drop-it-immediately behaviour was just for the lock-on sequence.

It was hard to get locks, but not hard to maintain them.

And it was actually rather nice. It didn't stop me from emptying my LRM ammo as usual - perhaps it even made me a bit more effective, since I didn't waste so much on bad locks

I actually wouldn't mind a non-bug version of this behaviour getting implemented.

Edited by stjobe, 18 March 2015 - 09:40 AM.

[Sorbic]

Think we can pile on any more hyperbole with these "aim in the general direction" comments I've seen in all these threads?

The bug varied. There were times when all you had to do was be dead center and it would lock. Other times it would seem to glitch and not start to lock for a few moments/until you yanked it off the target for a split second. It was also causing locks to be lost more easily.

[Voivode]

I don't know if it's total hyperbole. LRMs are in a funny place right now. They can be stupid easy mode against the right opponents (that rare team with no ECM, people who stand in the open etc) but on the flip side they are often completely useless.

PGI went through phases where the damage and/or speed were higher, and the game was inundated with LRMs, which was pretty universally hated. I think more than anything, people would like LRMs to be more consistently useful without tipping into the territory of being absurdly good. Part of that change will no doubt involve altering the lock on mechanic or increasing the cooldown to reduce the spam.

[terrycloth]

If you think it would make LRMs better to require the reticle to be over the mech itself, then you'll surely agree that lockon time + travel time would have to be a maximum of 1.5 seconds, to match the next slowest firing weapon that requires you to keep the reticle over the mech at long ranges.

[Koniving]

Alistair Winter, on 18 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

For a tiny moment, missile locks actually required a minimum of aiming skills in order to get a lock. All PGI had to do was to increase projectile speed to compensate for the increased difficulty, and the gameplay would have improved significantly. LRMs would have been challenging to use, but increased projectile speed would have made them more effective against players who know how to use cover!

We were so close!

Now PGI reverted the changes and LRMs are back to where they were. Easy-mode in the underhive and running joke among skilled players.

You can kinda still get this hard mode with a Zeus. Specifically the Zeus with 3 energy on the left hand, 1 missile on the right. Only seems to occur with ECM in line of sight (regardless if shielding the intended target or not).

And I liked it. I just wish it gradually decayed with partial lock strength. Better the lock better the accuracy.

[Karl Streiger]

Funny stuff is played with Zeus yesterday and got locks - that hit the target

[Koniving]

terrycloth, on 18 March 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

If you think it would make LRMs better to require the reticle to be over the mech itself, then you'll surely agree that lockon time + travel time would have to be a maximum of 1.5 seconds, to match the next slowest firing weapon that requires you to keep the reticle over the mech at long ranges.

I'd personally prefer to instantly lose the lock after firing -- and never have to hold the lock to hit the target.

[Voivode]

Koniving, on 18 March 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

gradually decayed with partial lock strength. Better the lock better the accuracy.

I think you've got yourself an LRM mechanic that would be well received. Lock strength by percent, perhaps, with a correlating accuracy percentage? No hard lock dropping but a "countdown" from 100% lock to 0%

[KraftySOT]

I know its crazy, but someone should tweet this thread to Russ.

LRMs will forever be in a bad place until they get an entirely new and creative game mechanic. Even if thats just harder locks to get, and more powerful missiles.

Teh feast and famine LRMs over the years has gotta come to an end.