365 replies to this topic

[Tlords]

Reno Blade, on 18 March 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

[color=#959595]Using same cooldown for all sizes will reduce the efficiency of LRM5 spam builds aswell as the increased spread to LRM5s (by using the same spread as bigger launchers) compared to bigger launchers[/color].

Amen... Larger LRM launchers should be as effective as smaller launchers - if not more so!

[Malleus011]

Could we also bug Russ to give the 2R 4 missile hardpoints?

[Navid A1]

Question:
Does the spread reduction benefits of TAG, NARC and Artemis lock in upon missile launch?, or do their effects kick in while LRMs are in the air?

Example:
If I launch LRM+Artemis with LOS at someone and move to cover without losing lock, do the LRMs keep their tight formation or do they go back to default spread?

Edited by Navid A1, 18 March 2016 - 09:55 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Malleus011, on 18 March 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Could we also bug Russ to give the 2R 4 missile hardpoints?

don't hold your breath.

[Navid A1]

Malleus011, on 18 March 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Could we also bug Russ to give the 2R 4 missile hardpoints?

I've been bugging him 24/7 for the past 2 days with pictures, suggestions and questions regarding LRM spreads and mechanics.
He is ignoring the issue (or it seems like he is at least)

Edited by Navid A1, 18 March 2016 - 09:56 PM.

[Snuggles Time]

Malleus011, on 18 March 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

Could we also bug Russ to give the 2R 4 missile hardpoints?

Bishop Steiner, on 18 March 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

don't hold your breath.

Unless he has [-MS-] tags, then Russ will listen.

[Wintersdark]

Snuggles Time, on 18 March 2016 - 10:11 PM, said:

Unless he has [-MS-] tags, then Russ will listen.

I can't recall PGI ever agreeing to alter hardpoints. Ever.

[wanderer]

Wintersdark, on 18 March 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

I can't recall PGI ever agreeing to alter hardpoints. Ever.

They actually did strip two from the Catapult-K2.

[Ted Wayz]

wanderer, on 18 March 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

Later on, people just learn to shoot the same target with more effective weapons and more importantly less scattering, meaning LRMs generally only are a better choice when they can take a line to the target everyone else can't, such as choke points or other spots with limited lines of fire.

It means the LRM is the most likely to do things right (by accident) early, but it falls off the charts first because of it's flaws.

I think you are talking about bad LRM pilots. Lazers are more noob friendly. Point + click + profit.

LRMs require skill to be effective. Good LRM pilots maintain their own LOS, maintain range, and move to avoid and spread damage. That is what I love about the Archer. It has twist for days so I can almost be going straight away from my target while maintaining LOS. The acc/dec quirks allow me to alter speed to keep the target at optimal range (300-600m) while altering my movement pattern.

LRMs are also great for going over the top when in close proximity of team members while in LOS, providing cockpit shaking damage without damaging said team members. The cockpit shaking is especially effective against ballistic mechs. Streaming missiles maintains this effect and also contributes to spreading damage against you.

Could I just one shot mechs with a lazer alpha from a T-wolf? Probably if they had a XL. But killing people with ineffectual missile boats is sooo much more fun. Because you know missiles suck and have problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for missiles being even stronger. The latest changes raised my overall missile hit percentage by 3 percent and it is still rising. To do that I am probably hitting 7-10% more than previously. I will gladly take another 10% or more with grouping changes, because at 1800 missiles 10% is another 180 damage a match on average. (Yes, I frequently empty out 1800 rounds in a match.)

[dwwolf]

LRMs need a couple of fixes.

The bigger launchers need the same spread as the small ones if tracking isnt changed.
RoF needs to be the same on all launchers.
A slight overall speed bonus.
LRMs need to track in clusters of 5. No more sandblaster LRMs.

Specifically mechs whose primary role is LRM fire support should get some of the following. Mix and match for chassis differentation.
A 20ish% lockon bonus.
A longer lockon retention time.
Partial immunity to radar derp module.
Even bigger missile flightspeed bonus.

But really what all missiles need is that a launcher is treated as one big missile swarm entity that is tracked by the server. Let the final results be handled statistically ala board n paper.

Can you imagine how the server hamsters are gonna react with needing to track each individual MRM once we get those.....<cringe>

[Laniarty]

I don't know if the people calling for buffs to lurms weren't around for the lurmaggedon 1 and 2, or just forget, but both were the most miserable unfun times I've ever had in MWO.

Lurms don't need a buff, they need a complete overhaul of how they work.

They also need that swarm animation back, for the lolz.

[Navid A1]

Laniarty, on 19 March 2016 - 02:07 AM, said:

I don't know if the people calling for buffs to lurms weren't around for the lurmaggedon 1 and 2, or just forget, but both were the most miserable unfun times I've ever had in MWO.

Lurms don't need a buff, they need a complete overhaul of how they work.

They also need that swarm animation back, for the lolz.

We were around for those... but some people only know the word "lurmageddon" and use it to dismiss anything.

Lurmageddon happened because lurms had splash damage and then because of their absurd vertical descend in their flight path.

NONE of those are going to happen again. So there will be NO lurmageddon EVER!

LRMs need to have the same spread across the board and should accelerate from 160 m/s to 400 m/s from 300 m to 1000 m


ALSO... RADAR DERP module was not around in the era of lurmageddon... remember that.

Edited by Navid A1, 19 March 2016 - 02:35 AM.

[Novakaine]

Both Lurmageddons were bad for this simple reason.
People would rather carry ammo than ams.
Now we have hard counters for lrms.
As for as not carrying AMS is the player's fault only.

[Wolfways]

Honestly I'm not even sure if a speed increase is needed...it would be nice of course.
But what is needed is the removal of the incoming missile warning. Even a speed increase is hardly a buff when the target gets a warning screaming "Run for cover now!!!"

[Satan n stuff]

Stefka Kerensky, on 16 March 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

Yea, now lmr are used at medium range, so at 400m the fly time is 2.5 sec.

What about doubling the speed, but to avoid OP use, let's add high spread at short ranges (the shorter the higher)?

Giving LRMs linear acceleration would help bridge the gap between medium and long range.
I plotted some graphs to come up with an example, 200m/s² gives us a little over a second to minimum range, 400M in 2 seconds and max range in under 3.5 seconds.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Aetes Nakatomi, on 16 March 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

Looks good and it would incentivize me to fit LRMs bigger than 5s

never. I say bring the rain. Its fun as hell to see ppl scramble when that continuous fire starts landing on them

Wolfways, on 19 March 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

Honestly I'm not even sure if a speed increase is needed...it would be nice of course.
But what is needed is the removal of the incoming missile warning. Even a speed increase is hardly a buff when the target gets a warning screaming "Run for cover now!!!"

They tried that already. The tears were epic

Navid A1, on 19 March 2016 - 02:34 AM, said:

ALSO... RADAR DERP module was not around in the era of lurmageddon... remember that.

nor was ECM

Laniarty, on 19 March 2016 - 02:07 AM, said:

I don't know if the people calling for buffs to lurms weren't around for the lurmaggedon 1 and 2, or just forget, but both were the most miserable unfun times I've ever had in MWO.

wow it was the complete opposite for me. Then again, I lrm

[Wolfways]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 19 March 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

They tried that already. The tears were epic

They removed the warning? I must have missed that time (was away for a year)

Honestly I don't care. Players complain now about "OP LRM's" and removing the warning shouldn't really affect players who can actually play other than they take a bit more damage (or even just some damage) from LRM's and know to get into cover when the first salvo hits (streaming LRM5's should also be removed).

Imo LRM's cannot be buffed/reworked as long as the warning exists.

[STEF_]

Satan n stuff, on 19 March 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

Giving LRMs linear acceleration would help bridge the gap between medium and long range.
I plotted some graphs to come up with an example, 200m/s² gives us a little over a second to minimum range, 400M in 2 seconds and max range in under 3.5 seconds.

I really would like this.

[WildeKarde]

Wolfways, on 19 March 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

Honestly I'm not even sure if a speed increase is needed...it would be nice of course.
But what is needed is the removal of the incoming missile warning. Even a speed increase is hardly a buff when the target gets a warning screaming "Run for cover now!!!"

Imagine if the incoming missile warning only triggered when the AMS system spotted the missiles and was triggered?

[Y E O N N E]

Wolfways, on 19 March 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

Imo LRM's cannot be buffed/reworked as long as the warning exists.

Or if they were fast enough that the only time you got significant window to do anything with the warning info is when those LRMs were fired from more than 600 meters away.