145 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

Threat Doc, on 11 April 2017 - 09:28 PM, said:

Tesunie... you are actually talking to potato's, and it is a battle that no longer needs be fought. I am done with this conversation, unless someone with brains and a lack of prejudice actually has something to say, and then I will respond, again. Not until then. As you said, jump, get a lock, and leave them a departing rack. Time to pop chaff and evade on these potato's.

Who are you calling potato?



Prolly best to have good scores before you start throwing the potato around.

[Tesunie]

Carl Vickers, on 11 April 2017 - 10:00 PM, said:

Who are you calling potato?



Prolly best to have good scores before you start throwing the potato around.

I probably don't want to know what my ranking is...

I actually don't overly care what it is, but I probably don't want to know either...

[Carl Vickers]

Tesunie, on 11 April 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

I probably don't want to know what my ranking is...

I actually don't overly care what it is, but I probably don't want to know either...

You're doing a lot better than your spud like friend.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 11 April 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[Tesunie]

Carl Vickers, on 11 April 2017 - 10:47 PM, said:

You're doing a lot better than your spud like friend.

In his defense, he seems to have played fewer games than I have for this season, and I've got a solid unit willing to put up with my LRM antics (actually, they originally said no, but eventually they let me bring it. That lead to them saying "take them if you want" once they saw how I played them).

Personally, I find that skill in the game doesn't always relate to actual knowledge on how things works. Sometimes, a person's knowledge may be better than their practical skills to perform and use said knowledge. I mean, I've seen some questions from T1 players that left me amazed that they didn't already know that information. Of course, I don't necessarily blame them for not knowing, it's just surprising.

[Lightfoot]

If you lower the flight path by equipping Artemis, you have increased the speed. Artemis does not do enough in MWO for a one ton, one slot per weapon equipped item. See weightless Radar Deprivation. Artemis LRMs use an infrared laser tracking system that requires line-of-sight, so the missiles would elevate only slightly since they are following a laser spot designator.

That's the correct fix for LRMs that adheres to the science/tech.

[SPencil]

Lightfoot, on 12 April 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

That's the correct fix for LRMs that adheres to the science/tech.

As far as Artemis is concerned I think

I remain unconvinced that LRMs should be a major target for the latest cycle of buffs / nerfs; a few tweaks to make them slightly more consistent maybe, but LRMs especially have a nasty habit of swinging to the extremes of over-powered and under-powered after anything more than a slight change. Of all other weapons systems, LRMs have the most variance in effectiveness and consistency. They also carry the capacity to do the most damage in any given match (forgetting for a second that lasers and PPC exist.) Fun fact, 9.5 tons of LRM ammo can out-damage the meta Kodiak Dakka build; of course the trick is that the Kodiak can place all it's damage where it needs to go, whereas it's nigh impossible to consistently achieve north of 75% accuracy with IS-LRMs... C-LRMs can do better for accuracy, since their spread isn't so much space as it is time.

Which leads me into another gripe: the distinction between Inner Sphere and Clan LRMs isn't payed enough respect in the discussion when it comes to their balance. While both ostensibly fulfill the same role their performance varies greatly in different situations: IS-LRMs do better in environments where target locks are inconsistent because their damage is a single burst (salvo) versus over time as it is with C-LRMs; it's harder to sidestep an IS-LRM salvo versus a C-LRM volley. C-LRMs can kill very quickly with a hard lock, whereas IS-LRMs shave the hell out of all the target's armour. Can't brawl with IS-LRMs, with C-LRMs it's at least an option. Balance changes for one won't necessarily translate well to another; I think makes some sense to cut C-LRM range as they don't operate well at extreme distances without dedicated support, but cutting range on IS-LRMs has a greater impact on damage output. This is why I voted 'maybe'.

I hesitate to give away my 'not-really-a-secret-secrets', but with adv. target decay and no radar deprivation, IS-LRM salvos can have an impact at distances far beyond where most people expect. I'm not sure about most of the other changes to LRMs proposed in this thread, but I can at least say that I disagree with the range cut as proposed