25 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

So, I see a lot of people being pissed about the laser cooldowns nerfs..

But nobody is talking about the lock-on dependent weapons going to the crapper?

Basically what PGI is doing is making it even MORE difficult to keep locks for LRMs, like LRM's don't have enough of a hard time already?

You're basically making LRM's useless if you are standing behind cover, making "LRM bending" useless, and giving it's indirect fire properties the ATM treatment, which will make them hella underpowered!

And atop of that, you're also nerfing ATMs so much they will basically be SRM's.. not SSRMs, but SRMs.. only viable in direct LOS..

And as if LRMs didn't spread enough.. with he Artemis nerf, there's now no reason to ever use Artemis.. the tonnage and hardpoint investment is simply too much for too little gain.

PGI.. seriously..

[redacted]

Edited by McValium, 17 October 2017 - 09:56 AM.
lets keep it classy

[N0ni]

If you don't plan on using Artemis after patch, that frees up +1 ton per launcher that you can invest in something else. It's not the end of the world.

[James Argent]

Actually, as a heavy SSRM user, I think that while this change will make keeping lights targeted a lot harder, the tradeoff will be that the weapon system no longer targeting destroyed components will make it more competitive against heavier targets (and lights should take less salvoes to kill). Skilled streak users will not be kept from light hunting, and they won't feel so outmatched when fighting at their own tonnage. So this patch isn't exactly about nerfing ALL lock-on weapons.

But as for LRMs, I agree. It's hard enough already to hold your own locks while under fire...now even minimal deviations to spread damage will break locks, forcing LRM users to use indirect fire from cover even more than they do already just so that they can maintain locks without facetanking. All the people who complain about LRM users not sharing armor should be the loudest voices against these changes.

[Papaspud]

this should be a nice buff to clan SSRMS-lighter shoot farther, won't hit destroyed stuff any more, and with the 360 meter always hit....ohlala- muey bueno!!!!!!!!!!!!

go clans go, no more IS MWOWC2018!

[OmniFail]

The Artemis nerf punishes people that get their own locks. Where is the outrage from the get your own locks and share armor crowd?

[James Argent]

Apart from the destroyed components thing, none of what you mentioned is a change for the next patch. And what does change also changes for IS SSRMs.

(And it's around 400m with typical skills, BTW.)

[The Mysterious Fox]

im kind of okay with the artemis nerfs but the 45 degree target lock thing bums me out. It just stops players spicing up gameplay by arcing their shots. #antifun

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Streaks are the only ones warranted for lock-on nerf, because it's buff vs nerf.
LRMs, SRMs, ATMs - all these were nerfed for no reason.

How can you even claim that Artemis makes SRMs too good while SRMs are nowhere near the meta. Idiocy

The Mysterious Fox, on 16 October 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

im kind of okay with the artemis nerfs but the 45 degree target lock thing bums me out. It just stops players spicing up gameplay by arcing their shots. #antifun

Exactly. ATMs weren't OP with "arcshots", just as LRMs weren't OP with "arcshots" (yep, you need those too quite often and arcshooting with LRMs was a thing for years). It was an interesting mechanic. It was fun and refreshing, especially with ATMs.

Yet for some damn reason, it wasn't "INTENDED" to work that way. Supposedly, ATMs were intended to be completely unreliable, not only situational. Duh.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 16 October 2017 - 01:34 AM.

[Papaspud]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 16 October 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

Streaks are the only ones warranted for lock-on nerf, because it's buff vs nerf.
LRMs, SRMs, ATMs - all these were nerfed for no reason.

How can you even claim that Artemis makes SRMs too good while SRMs are nowhere near the meta. Idiocy

Simple, there were IS mechs that did pretty good with SRMs, we can't have that- drop the nerf hammer! Oh and any IS that were dps dependant- sell, sell, sell... get yourself some good clan mechs.

[Felbombling]

I don't actually mind the sensor lock changes. It makes LRM/ATM Mechs a little more self-reliant to get their own locks and maintain them by exposing themselves. This is how those weapon systems were intended to work in the first place and in lore.

Beyond that, the Sensor tree has five Target Retention nodes that will add up to 3.5 seconds of lock time if the reticule wanders off target. That should be sufficient to land most shots.

[Kroete]

It removes the chance for a lrm/atm user to competed with directfire at low ranges.

Missiles spread, you need more hits do kill an enemy,
means for every alpha you get you need to give two back.

Fighting with atm+lrms at frontline:
Waitting at a slope, enemys shows, hit him with lrms, atms maybe lasers too, get hit from him, he goes back, you bend your missiles over the slope and give him a second salvo of atms+lrms.
Now you cant bend over the slope, no chance to deliver the second volley to get a tie.

What does this mean?
Back to lrm 60-80 for my snv and standing back a lot more, because range doesnt matter for lrms and atms are not useable without bending. And to hit enemys behind cover (where you never can hit him with atms, even with bending) you also need to bend your lrms or stand futher back to get the needed high for your missiles for the right trajectory to hit him behind cover.

Good work pgi, you made me to stand back with my lrm mech because you nerfed the tools to use missiles at the front and competet with direct fire.

Edited by Kroete, 16 October 2017 - 02:00 AM.

[FupDup]

Making lock-ons harder to achieve/hold is a change that actually makes sense. This mechanic has been the primary factor making non-SRM missiles so damn hard to balance for years now. It's probably still not truly fixed, but it'll be a bit closer to something that makes sense.

I agree that the Artemis nerf is uncalled for though. PGI is forgetting how much more projectile and beam weapons benefit from the skill tree than missiles do.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

FupDup, on 16 October 2017 - 03:18 AM, said:

Making lock-ons harder to achieve/hold is a change that actually makes sense. This mechanic has been the primary factor making non-SRM missiles so damn hard to balance for years now. It's probably still not truly fixed, but it'll be a bit closer to something that makes sense.
(...)

As Kroete said, arcshots were actually the thing making ATMs useful, and were a fun mechanic. No reason to use ATMs from now on, because 90% of the time you need facetime to have a chance to do significant damage and that means that 90% of the time you're gonna eat a laser alpha to the face while staring at the enemy waiting for the lock-on. And forget about shielding even a bit, 0 shielding available.

The challange of ATMs was to sneak up to the enemy at sub-300 meter distance while still being unseen AND not having a high cover between you and him (arcshots weren't strong enough to pass anything but a slopy terrain). That was the only way you could make them really shine, otherwise they mostly suck and you're totally team-, map- and situation- reliant.

ATMs were a high risk high reward weapon, which was awesome. Actually the first weapons system to work like that. Now they're broken twice, because you need to add up the fact that laser changes favour poking game, which is bad for ATMs.

I would need to test things ingame to be absolutely sure that this change is also so bad, but I'm not even gonna patch the game unless PGI comes back to their senses. The game got broken beyond fun to me.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 16 October 2017 - 03:43 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

I think the actual outcome will be that people will stop using Artemis on lurmboats because its not all that important for lurms anywany, and SRM boats will still use it because the spread on srm6 is still too big and you have to do whatever it takes to reduce it.

Which I believe is opposed to what pgi's intention was.

[Brain Cancer]

So let's review the missile changes.

We make missile locks a narrower cone. This means you kill flick launches, removing skill from firing.

Then, you nerf Artemis. This makes getting your own locks less rewarding, encouraging the worst lurmtaters to hide even more- and not to comeout. You even nerf ATMs because they're fluffed to have Artemis built-in.

You do this to prevent most missiles in a salvo from hitting one location, something only SRMs can do, but the change does nothing to prevent it, only making life worse for already flawed weapons.

GG PGI. At least you honestly upgraded Streak boats.

[Asym]

First, I agree with the OP.

PGI will do anything to rid the battlespace of indirect fire that annoys the brawling crowd and comp players.

After all, if LRMs were at full strength and dangerous, we would not have MWOWC teams with established high ground shooting platforms with three SNA's decked out with and for CERLL sniping..... Because, if LRM's were "real weapons", they'd be toast because they weren't even trying to hide; because, they're completely safe from indirect fire in comp play.......

Imagine what the Arrow IV would do to comp play....... Well, lets be honest, Solaris is where PGI is headed and you won't need LRM's there and Streaks will be nerf'd into a joke. (sigh...)

[Trissila]

Felbombling, on 16 October 2017 - 01:46 AM, said:

I don't actually mind the sensor lock changes. It makes LRM/ATM Mechs a little more self-reliant to get their own locks and maintain them by exposing themselves. This is how those weapon systems were intended to work in the first place and in lore.

Beyond that, the Sensor tree has five Target Retention nodes that will add up to 3.5 seconds of lock time if the reticule wanders off target. That should be sufficient to land most shots.

That is not how Target Retention works.

TR enables you to keep a lock on a target that has broken LoS if you are still within valid lock cone. It does not hold locks if you go off-target. Specifically, TR keeps the red box active longer, and you can lock off of that. You still lose missile lock if you go outside the cone.

And no, this does not make missile launchers more reliant on getting their own locks. In point of fact, this specifically and directly NERFS launchers that get their own locks, by nerfing the spread of Artemis-enabled weapons and nerfing the ability to compensate for terrain that would not be accounted for by the auto-arc system (I.E. terrain that is extreme because you are so close to the target, getting your own locks).

The changes nerf everything that is not a lrmslug assault sitting in the back firing at remote locks.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

This certainly is one of PGI's more baffling decisions.

And we have a lot of them to choose from.

[Maker L106]

Damn PGI excuse me for thinking ATM's were mid range missiles that were meant to be shot around cover... "GFY" in patch notes like I've not seen in a while.

[Edit]

And yeah after thought I suppose... no comp players like indirect anything.

Edited by Maker L106, 17 October 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

OmniFail, on 16 October 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

The Artemis nerf punishes people that get their own locks. Where is the outrage from the get your own locks and share armor crowd?

This, I personally think both modes are important/valid but actively harming direct lock LRMs which are already a weak weapon is just... stupid, no other way to say it.