151 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Quote

lol .. Nope. You need to lose LoS as well. In most cases you lose lock because you lose LoS, or lose LoS even before you lose lock. When you clearly see a target you launched em at you can unlock it all you want.

Factually untrue. Unlock from a target (ECM will also cut off a lock, LOS or not) and Artemis or no, line of sight or not, your missiles will stop tracking immediately. There is no fire-and-forget mode.

[PhoenixFire55]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

And part of your damage will automatically miss the target entirely. And for that matter, LPLs pretty much define engagement range at this point.

And what exactly forces you to move into their effective range? IS LPL is 365m, thats alomst SRM range, 700m to scratch your paint ... those 50 points of alphavomit are 50 points at 300m, at 600m its like 20 points at best. And clan duration is still clan duration, even for pulses, although range is indeed very good.

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

Incorrect. Faster targets will actually cause more missiles to whiff the target (and they tend to hit lower as well), especially if you're moving perpendicular to the launch.

Faster as in 130+ kph faster. Needless to say they do the same (reduced average accuracy) for all projectiles, PPCs, ballistics, etc.

[PhoenixFire55]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

Factually untrue. Unlock from a target (ECM will also cut off a lock, LOS or not) and Artemis or no, line of sight or not, your missiles will stop tracking immediately. There is no fire-and-forget mode.

Make a video and show how it works then. If true we'll send it to PGI and tell em "hey its not Working as Intended^TM".
I know for a fact that my missiles very often track the target far beyond the loss of lock.

[wanderer]

Quote

Faster as in 130+ kph faster. Needless to say they do the same (reduced average accuracy) for all projectiles, PPCs, ballistics, etc.

You start losing missiles around 90kph (and get the aforementioned low-shift), while small, fast targets like a Locust/Commando sidestepping can end up barely damaged by larger launchers. Heck, I ended up chasing a Commando with LRM 5s and dumped about 400 missiles into him.

It still hadn't gone internal by the time he got out of range.

[Nik Reaper]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

....

lol .. Nope. You need to lose LoS as well. In most cases you lose lock because you lose LoS, or lose LoS even before you lose lock. When you clearly see a target you launched em at you can unlock it all you want.

....

Say what now? Can you link a video of this?

As far as I know , you need the target locked and crosshair over target for tracking to work, hell I even played a few games with it and still got the same result , If during locked flight I change target next to the first locked and launched target the missiles stop tracking it... why I did that was becuase Kcrab with 4xlrm5 and 4xLPL, and those LPL needed a home too on an damaged target.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 28 June 2016 - 11:29 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Make a video and show how it works then. If true we'll send it to PGI and tell em "hey its not Working as Intended^TM".
I know for a fact that my missiles very often track the target far beyond the loss of lock.

We're talking how missiles have functioned since closed beta. Missiles will continue towards the point of lost lock, but they don't adjust trajectory afterwards unless you re-establish lock. Heck, that's how you can pull a missile salvo at right angles to hit someone who's running behind cover- break lock before they get behind cover, re-establish lock just as the missiles are about to come down after they get past said cover, missiles turn and "relaunch" from that point to go behind the cover and hit as you've just "curved the bullet".

[PhoenixFire55]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

Heck, I ended up chasing a Commando with LRM 5s and dumped about 400 missiles into him.

It still hadn't gone internal by the time he got out of range.

What can I say. You keep doing that please. While you are at it keep crying how bad LRMs are.

Why don't I chase a Commando with an SPL DireWolf and cry how much SPLs and DireWolves suck I wonder ...

Nik Reaper, on 28 June 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Say what now? Can you link a video of this?

If I feel like playing LRMs again any time soon I'll try, sure.

[PhoenixFire55]

wanderer, on 28 June 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

We're talking how missiles have functioned since closed beta. Missiles will continue towards the point of lost lock, but they don't adjust trajectory afterwards unless you re-establish lock. Heck, that's how you can pull a missile salvo at right angles to hit someone who's running behind cover- break lock before they get behind cover, re-establish lock just as the missiles are about to come down after they get past said cover, missiles turn and "relaunch" from that point to go behind the cover and hit as you've just "curved the bullet".

Missiles continue towards the projected target trajectory, i.e. where I'd be if I keep moving in the same direction with the same speed as at the moment they've lost lock. This is easy to see in a light, you got LRMs on you, you run behind a hill, keep running until target retention loses it then hit a full stop and see how all the missiles hit dirt right in front of you, not behind you or where you stopped. This isn't as apparent anymore since they changed the flight pattern long ago. Missiles "lead" the target, i.e. fly in an intercept course rather then "chasing" targets. This change was done because prior LRMs were very good at curving around obstacles on those chase trajectories (needless to say without the "reaquired lock trick").

[Navid A1]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

If I feel like playing LRMs again any time soon I'll try, sure.

Highly doubt it. Because we know how it works. And despite what you think. its working as intended.

After being so badly rekt in this discussion i would not touch LRMs either if i were you.

The hilarious thing is that you keep on showing how mis-informed you are time and time again.

[Mechteric]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

Missiles continue towards the projected target trajectory, i.e. where I'd be if I keep moving in the same direction with the same speed as at the moment they've lost lock. This is easy to see in a light, you got LRMs on you, you run behind a hill, keep running until target retention loses it then hit a full stop and see how all the missiles hit dirt right in front of you, not behind you or where you stopped.

Not true, they actually are dumber than that. They actually appear to hone in to a specific point, you can see this easily when you see them incoming and just step aside a few meters. The LRMs will fly right through where you were at the point of lost lock, not where they thought you were going to be based on your speed or anything fancy like that.

[L1f3H4ck]

Egg Fu, on 26 June 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Good friend of mine has been playing this game since release and he's still humping the doorknob as you say. Pretty much all he has ever played are LRM boats. He never really learned how to play the game because he just hides behind the group.

Then he's using LRMs wrong.

Missile boats should always be moving and repositioning to maximise their damage output and be able to threaten as much area as possible while also drawing enemy fire to share some of the damage burden. LRMs are fine, but many who use them are just lazy.

[PhoenixFire55]

Navid A1, on 28 June 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

Highly doubt it. Because we know how it works. And despite what you think. its working as intended.

After being so badly rekt in this discussion i would not touch LRMs either if i were you.

The hilarious thing is that you keep on showing how mis-informed you are time and time again.

Whatever you say mr. radar deprivation module in competitive play.

[ExoForce]

Made some popcorn. Current result 3:0. Overtime?

[PhoenixFire55]

CapperDeluxe, on 28 June 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Not true, they actually are dumber than that. They actually appear to hone in to a specific point, you can see this easily when you see them incoming and just step aside a few meters. The LRMs will fly right through where you were at the point of lost lock, not where they thought you were going to be based on your speed or anything fancy like that.

If you stepped aside after they lost lock while being stationary prior then surely they'll hit where you were. You need to be more specific about when they lose lock, what you did prior and what you do after.

[wanderer]

Quote

Missiles continue towards the projected target trajectory, i.e. where I'd be if I keep moving in the same direction with the same speed as at the moment they've lost lock.

Actually, they'll continue towards the precise point lock was lost. If they were turning at that point, they'll continue to do so in order to reach that point, and it's part of why missiles occasionally do that "skim" down inclines.

No, really. An LRM that loses lock reverts to dumbfire mode, regarding the last point of lock as your "crosshairs".

[Holdfast]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

If you stepped aside after they lost lock while being stationary prior then surely they'll hit where you were. You need to be more specific about when they lose lock, what you did prior and what you do after.

Okay, according to your logic, if I'm in my Marauder (w/ a radar dep mod) standing in the open and I get the "incoming!" warning and then I turn and run in a straight line so that the line of sight with the enemy is blocked I'll still get nailed by the missiles. Because I'm going in a straight line, right?, and it can predict where I'll be.

But no, if I do that, they'll hit the ground somewhere behind me, in the exact spot where my radar derp / lost LoS kicks in.

[Mystere]

GreenHell, on 28 June 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

So what we're really asking for is the removal of Radar-Derp module, and changing ECM to the tabletop mechanics.

Right?

Edited by Mystere, 28 June 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Fast, flat trajectory so they can synergize with direct fire. Increase RoF to make DPS useful relative to weight. Dramatically increase lock times with LoS.

Make indirect fire same speed as now but all have regular LRM20 spread.

The issue is indirect fire. When indirect fire is as good as direct fire you eliminate the need for direct fire as indirect is safer. Making LRMs an IDF weapon is what started all these problems.

[Zibmo]

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Make a video and show how it works then. If true we'll send it to PGI and tell em "hey its not Working as Intended^TM".
I know for a fact that my missiles very often track the target far beyond the loss of lock.

And I know for a fact that if my missiles hit the target after I break lock, it's pure accident or bad piloting on my target's part. Why do you think breaking locks yourself (by moving behind hills) makes the LRMs miss?

PhoenixFire55, on 28 June 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Whatever you say mr. radar deprivation module in competitive play.

LOL. If you don't see the value of Radar Derp even without LRM or SSRM, I'm not sure what to say .

[wanderer]

Quote

Making LRMs an IDF weapon is what started all these problems.

I'd have called it things like splash mega-damage, head-seeking LRMs, CT-seeking LRMs, and so on. LRMs have arguably been some of the buggiest weapons in the game- and heck, they even managed that when they did CLAN LRMs for good measure.

LRMs as a direct-fire weapon will never compete with real direct-fire weapons, because you can't put a 40+ damage alpha into a single pixel. Spread damage doesn't beat pinpoint damage, ever. Take away IDF and you've not only castrated the system, you've reduced the game to endless peekfests, and you've also basically told people that hey, screw mortars and artillery because we can't have people not firing in a straight line and HITTING EACH OTHER.