365 replies to this topic

[Sader325]

http://mwomercs.com/...e-buffing-lrms/

^better idea.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sader325, on 24 May 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...e-buffing-lrms/

^better idea.

except it was covered in the OP, a month earlier.

*shrugs*

[Navid A1]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 May 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

except it was covered in the OP, a month earlier.

*shrugs*

yup... Page 4 of this very same thread

[Bishop Steiner]

Navid A1, on 24 May 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

yup... Page 4 of this very same thread

and the OP itself. either way. *shrugs*

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

Give ALL Launchers the same spread pattern (because mass, crits and slow cooldown is more than enough tax on the big launchers, already), Probably the LRM10 pattern, and a little tighter with Artemis.

[Andi Nagasia]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 May 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

and the OP itself. either way. *shrugs*

well Flamers got reworked? maybe we will see LBXs or LRMs next? one can dream cant we

[Navid A1]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 May 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

and the OP itself. either way. *shrugs*

ah... I need better eyes..

Andi Nagasia, on 24 May 2016 - 09:05 PM, said:

well Flamers got reworked? maybe we will see LBXs or LRMs next? one can dream cant we

Never ever ever ever.
Flamers were different. Paul was not killed by a flamer before!

[kapusta11]

In addition I'd make LRMs fire and forget weapon and drastically reduce lock acquisition time with artemis (against targets within LoS).

Edited by kapusta11, 25 May 2016 - 11:51 AM.

[wanderer]

Yes, because giving a weapon that already needs facetime even more facetime is a great idea in an era of facemelting laservomit. GG, that.

[kapusta11]

wanderer, on 25 May 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Yes, because giving a weapon that already needs facetime even more facetime is a great idea in an era of facemelting laservomit. GG, that.

Oops, that was a typo.

[Malleus011]

I see PGI noticed our concerns about the LRM system, realized it had been as issue for years, and swiftly and effectively addressed our concerns and acted to fix the issue.

Like always, right?

[nimdabew]

Prosperity Park, on 16 March 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think the bigger problem is this:

A Mech that has LRM20 as stock will have many missile hardpoints, and so they would be better using twn LRM10 or triple LRM5s. Twin LRM10 should be better than a single LRM20 because they command twice as many hardpoints

A Mech with LRM5 as stock will not be able to mount many missiles (they will probably have 1 missile hardpoint), so they are best with a LRM15 or LRM20. They only have 1 hardpoint to use.

It's backwards. Mechs with Big LRMs as stock are best-off with using small LRMs; Mechs with small LRMs as stock are best-off with Big LRMs.

Each missile "slot" should have a maximum tube count. ie Centurion with its stock LRM10 can fit either 2 LRM5's, 1 LRM 10's, no LRM15/20, but can fit 2 SRM4's, 1 SRM4, 1 SRM6, but no 2 SRM6's. It would solve a lot of problems to have "left arm can fit a totazl of 10 missiles" instead of total hardpoints.

This idea can be expanded to lasers as well, but it will never happen. PGI does not do well with ideas.

[Felicitatem Parco]

nimdabew, on 25 May 2016 - 01:00 PM, said:

Each missile "slot" should have a maximum tube count. ie Centurion with its stock LRM10 can fit either 2 LRM5's, 1 LRM 10's, no LRM15/20, but can fit 2 SRM4's, 1 SRM4, 1 SRM6, but no 2 SRM6's. It would solve a lot of problems to have "left arm can fit a totazl of 10 missiles" instead of total hardpoints.

This idea can be expanded to lasers as well, but it will never happen. PGI does not do well with ideas.

I think you just requested MW4- style sized hardpoints
..

[Karl Streiger]

Prosperity Park, on 25 May 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

I think you just requested MW4- style sized hardpoints
..

nope he just described the "Los Tech" tube system that only some overlooked Mech still use (Pretty Baby and Victor for example)

And afaik some of us wanted the same for all weapons.... but instead the system of all weapons were mirrored on the missiles. Granting THREE HUGE 15/20 rack sizes on the Centurion - sure i ran my Centurion AH usually with 2 LRM20 and 1 LRM15 - next to 3 AC20s


Oh btw: that smaller missiles have faster reload and reduced spread the same is also to be found within energy weapons. all laser should have the same cycle time and beam duration.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 May 2016 - 06:50 AM.

[Nyte Kitsune]

Completely agree with you Bishop.. Bigger LRM's need some love. See way too many people boating LRM 5's, not only because you can chain fire them for little heat, but because of the amount of "Rocking" they cause to the target, making it harder for the target to shoot them back. Not to mention that the DPS of LRM 5's vs larger LRM's is silly, Larger racks should be more effective.. not less.

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 26 May 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

nope he just described the "Los Tech" tube system that only some overlooked Mech still use (Pretty Baby and Victor for example)

And afaik some of us wanted the same for all weapons.... but instead the system of all weapons were mirrored on the missiles. Granting THREE HUGE 15/20 rack sizes on the Centurion - sure i ran my Centurion AH usually with 2 LRM20 and 1 LRM15 - next to 3 AC20s

AS7-D is supposed to only have 5 LRM tubes, and fire 4 volleys.

Annoys the crap outta me that it doesn't.

[Barantor]

I've been an advocate of a change to the way LRMs act since beta since I never understood why the same system happens when firing indirect and direct fire.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 May 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

AS7-D is supposed to only have 5 LRM tubes, and fire 4 volleys.

Annoys the crap outta me that it doesn't.

Not only the number also the tractory and general behaviour



Indirect was more inaccurate and the switch from indirect into direct firing mode turned LRMs into a valuable asset. (1.59) -
LOSTECH - Atlas with LRMs and Gauss - it's a waste of today but it was a death dealer back then.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 May 2016 - 07:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

required reading
https://www.mechspec...test-lrms.8298/

[Queek Head Taker]

You guys are bonkers!! Lrm 5 is not op.... Just you guys are mostly news like the ops, one Ams negates lrm5 but you all want high alpha strikes so you don't take Ams then I **** your *** with lrm5 and you all whine about it been op.... Ams sure can't take out all lrm15 or 20 my summoner runs dual Ams rarely anything.g ever gets through especially lrm 5 stacked or not lrms aren't the problem you guys are

[Queek Head Taker]

This thread is why pgi doesn't read the forums cause you all yell lrm 5 are broken when all you need is one Ams.... And it's not like Ams is heavy speech and op your little damage chart for damage to mech for each missles size.... Give that mech one Ams and you will see hardly any damage to the mech from lrm5 but you will from the rest