28 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

So the reasoning behind the nerf was: pre skill tree Artemis gave you 34% spread bonus and after the skill tree you could increase it further by 5% which made missiles OP AF.

Well, now Atremis reduces missile spread by only 25% which is 4% lower than pre ST Artemis even with ST bonuses. Shouldn't it be 29% instead?

Do we really need to nerf missile builds in a clan gauss laser vomit meta?

Edited by kapusta11, 19 October 2017 - 02:42 AM.

[El Bandito]

It really doesn't make any sense given the current meta. How are missiles overperforming?

Edited by El Bandito, 19 October 2017 - 02:38 AM.

[Jun Watarase]

Artemis was over performing just like the DRG-1C. There were a lot of players that asked for the artemis nerf on the forums...oh wait that never happened.

Maybe PGI should stop making changes that not a single one of their customers have asked for? You know, like what most companies do and which is taught in first year business courses?

[Roughneck45]

But, guys, their metrics said so.

Edited by Roughneck45, 19 October 2017 - 04:49 AM.

[El Bandito]

Roughneck45, on 19 October 2017 - 04:48 AM, said:

But, guys, their metrics said so.

PGI probably saw missiles doing a lot damage, and nerfed them while flat out ignoring their spread nature, which makes their damage far less impacting than it really is.

Then again, I don't work there so no idea what goes through their minds.

Edited by El Bandito, 19 October 2017 - 05:20 AM.

[Novakaine]

Novakaine Jr. consoling me after the patch.

Edited by Novakaine, 19 October 2017 - 05:32 AM.

[Asym]

I'm not sure no one asked for the nerf....
Over the 10 months I've been playing, there have been dozens of forum pieces condemming LRMs and pilot who use LRM's.
I'd bet you PGI reads the forums, and they do, for marketing data: what does the community like or hate. All gaming companies read their forums, at least the ones I've actually studied in my garduate program, and use that data to market and understand market tolerances: i.e. what can we get away with or where we need to refine the sales direction.....

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

[Kijiro Bugboy]

Asym, on 19 October 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure no one asked for the nerf....
Over the 10 months I've been playing, there have been dozens of forum pieces condemming LRMs and pilot who use LRM's.
I'd bet you PGI reads the forums, and they do, for marketing data: what does the community like or hate. All gaming companies read their forums, at least the ones I've actually studied in my garduate program, and use that data to market and understand market tolerances: i.e. what can we get away with or where we need to refine the sales direction.....

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

One must learn not to group the entire population of a game into one basket. Isn't it obvious that those posting in this thread are generally opposed to such viewpoints?

[Kin3ticX]

Asym, on 19 October 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure no one asked for the nerf....
Over the 10 months I've been playing, there have been dozens of forum pieces condemming LRMs and pilot who use LRM's.
I'd bet you PGI reads the forums, and they do, for marketing data: what does the community like or hate. All gaming companies read their forums, at least the ones I've actually studied in my garduate program, and use that data to market and understand market tolerances: i.e. what can we get away with or where we need to refine the sales direction.....

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

LRMs and lockons in general are a FOOs strategy in mwo. People inside the Battletech/mwo community look at LRMs as a whole swath of lore weapons. People use LRMs for the sake of LRMs themselves without realizing the game at some point will nudge them out of the weapon(it is expected along the way you learn a new trick). However, since its a FOOs strategy they can also rightly decide to use LRMs forever and always get a certain baseline level of power provided all the stars align for them to get solid locks. The power level for a FOOs should be where you can get an occasional kill on a far superior player and some of the butthurt comes from that.

I hate LRMs and make fun of all the bad ways people put them on mechs, but in the same breath I want them to use LRMs if thats their best pathway.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 19 October 2017 - 06:55 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

game at some point will nudge them out of the weapon

I find that inane, honestly.

There is no reason for LRMs to be a "phase", any more than lasers, AC's, or PPCs. Or even SRMs

There was even less reason to nerf them still further. Zero. A weapon performing so badly that it doesn't exist in MWO's ESports tournament, looked down on as trash performance levels in comp, and barely considered a decent newbie killer.

This is what you decide needs more spread when a lurmtater evolves enough to stop standing behind hills.

[Mcgral18]

Asym, on 19 October 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure no one asked for the nerf....
Over the 10 months I've been playing, there have been dozens of forum pieces condemming LRMs and pilot who use LRM's.
I'd bet you PGI reads the forums, and they do, for marketing data: what does the community like or hate. All gaming companies read their forums, at least the ones I've actually studied in my garduate program, and use that data to market and understand market tolerances: i.e. what can we get away with or where we need to refine the sales direction.....

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

No, LRMs aren't taken, because they're bad
If they would be buffed, the Terribads would cry hard

It's not the top level that wants them nerfed; they don't think of them at all.
They're nothing compared to relevant weapons


You need to get off your anti comp chair, it makes you spew nonsense.

Asym, on 19 October 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'm not sure no one asked for the nerf....
Over the 10 months I've been playing, there have been dozens of forum pieces condemming LRMs and pilot who use LRM's.
I'd bet you PGI reads the forums, and they do, for marketing data: what does the community like or hate. All gaming companies read their forums, at least the ones I've actually studied in my garduate program, and use that data to market and understand market tolerances: i.e. what can we get away with or where we need to refine the sales direction.....

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

No, LRMs aren't taken, because they're bad
If they would be buffed, the Terribads would cry hard

It's not the top level that wants them nerfed; they don't think of them at all.
They're nothing compared to relevant weapons


You need to get off your anti comp chair, it makes you spew nonsense.

[Verilligo]

I'm pretty sure nobody gives a damn about Artemis and LRMs. People complain about LRMs fired by players without line of sight, in which case Artemis doesn't even work. This Artemis nerf effectively only impacts SRMs, which... why? In order to indirectly nerf the Assassin and attempt to contain the fury that is the Arctic Wolf before it got unleashed? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure THAT one didn't work.

[FireStoat]

My theory is that PGI is looking at the total time to kill numbers and DPS of mechs and is releasing patches that nerf damage under two categories. Category One is a list of nerfs that players will at least recognize as being related to an issue that's present in the game. A new player asks what's good and easy to play, and he's answered with a Hellbringer Laser Vomit. In that case, something's being nerfed that's 'good'.
Category Two is a list of nerfs that aren't on anyone's radar whatsoever, but if they sneak at least one in each patch then the overall goal of reducing time to kill will be met eventually without alarming the player base.

The above was typed without the use of a metal hat. When I wear one of those, the REALLY dark truths come out from my typing.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

I'm pretty sure nobody gives a damn about Artemis and LRMs. People complain about LRMs fired by players without line of sight, in which case Artemis doesn't even work. This Artemis nerf effectively only impacts SRMs, which... why? In order to indirectly nerf the Assassin and attempt to contain the fury that is the Arctic Wolf before it got unleashed? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure THAT one didn't work.

Uh, no.

It did nothing to the worst users of LRMs. The get-your-own-locks ones that were decent with them?

Hosed. And as part of the change, they -also- hosed ATMs. Just because.

As an attempt to contain splatbuilds, it was meaningless. The only noticeable effect was on missile types already in need of buffs, not nerfs.

And there's the whole lock arc reduction for good measure. I have no idea what PGI's logic was here, even after the patch notes.

[Verilligo]

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Uh, no.

It did nothing to the worst users of LRMs. The get-your-own-locks ones that were decent with them?

Hosed. And as part of the change, they -also- hosed ATMs. Just because.

As an attempt to contain splatbuilds, it was meaningless. The only noticeable effect was on missile types already in need of buffs, not nerfs.

And there's the whole lock arc reduction for good measure. I have no idea what PGI's logic was here, even after the patch notes.

My point was that the number of players impacted by the Artemis nerf that use them with LRMs is relatively small. Even pre-patched Artemis LRMs were... pretty crap. So it's hard to say the Artemis nerf did much to LRMs because LRMs are garbage weapons no matter how you dice it. They need a FIX as opposed to either a buff or a nerf because their current implementation is just terrible. But yes, players that did the right thing with LRMs, getting their own locks and gaining their buff from Artemis were impacted and severely.

However it's hard for me to believe they made a sweeping change to Artemis, and in turn ATMs, purely based on the performance of LRMs going sky high. Because they weren't. For that matter, neither were SRMs, so it boggles me why they did it. I can understand WHY they increased spread on ATMs, if RNG played in your favor then certain ATM boat designs would murder people. But I thought that was the point of using ATMs.

[MischiefSC]

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Uh, no.

It did nothing to the worst users of LRMs. The get-your-own-locks ones that were decent with them?

Hosed. And as part of the change, they -also- hosed ATMs. Just because.

As an attempt to contain splatbuilds, it was meaningless. The only noticeable effect was on missile types already in need of buffs, not nerfs.

And there's the whole lock arc reduction for good measure. I have no idea what PGI's logic was here, even after the patch notes.

No Linebacker was hurt by this round of nerfs.

No Splatcrow.

Not the new SplatWolf.

However, Griffins and any IS Splat build and every LRM player who got their own locks got a swift kick.

Good thing they nerfed those. There was this one time in band camp where I actually lost to a Griffin in my Nova. It was just once, but still. Oh and on the rare times I actually got caught out from cover by an LRM pilot who was actually getting his own locks with LRMs it was an actual threat because it could do enough focused damage to actually kill me. That's never a real threat with indirect fire. Good thing they nerfed that too.

The only thing the Artemis nerf (and the laser nerf) was increase KComs already 98% win/loss rate by a bit and give us a real boost in KDR. I wish I could say 'thank you PGI' but the changes in this patch just... feel dirty. They kicked the ones that needed help down and either missed the top performing stuff completely or stealth-buffed them by weakening their only real counters.

[MadRover]

Jun Watarase, on 19 October 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

Artemis was over performing just like the DRG-1C. There were a lot of players that asked for the artemis nerf on the forums...oh wait that never happened.

Maybe PGI should stop making changes that not a single one of their customers have asked for? You know, like what most companies do and which is taught in first year business courses?

First year business courses? That’s taught in High School when you start the easy stuff. Apparently it wasn’t taught to them for some reason though.

[Brain Cancer]

Does the design team even have business degrees? I wouldn't think it's in their range of study.

[Roughneck45]

Asym, on 19 October 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

You'all wanted LRM's gone. MWOWC don't use LRM's why? Because they are not FPS'esk weapons.....indirect fire makes you have to think before you put three Laser boated SNA's on an open hilltop, in plain view, sniping........if LRM's were as dangerous as they could be, that little sniping stunt would have lasted 1 minute because they'd have gotten devestated up there by a LRM strong mech..... Gosh, imagine an Arrow IV effect.....

Just an observation.........

The only thing it makes a unit think is "They have LRMs, close the gap with cover and slaughter them"

LRMs aren't used because they aren't reliable. Too many hard counters.

LRMs can be used effectively, they can put out big damage numbers, they can work in your average MWO game. The better your opponent gets the worse LRMs become, which is only compounded further if they are using voip to coordinate. The maximum potential for success that LRMs have is not as high as direct fire weapons.

If they were strong enough to do what you suggested everyone would suffer, newer players the most. We had one lurmageddon, no more please.

Personally I think LRMs are in a pretty good spot right now. You can make them work in open play and they can be fun to use but they will never be comp viable because of the inherent features/flaws.

Edited by Roughneck45, 19 October 2017 - 02:30 PM.

[MadRover]

Brain Cancer, on 19 October 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

Does the design team even have business degrees? I wouldn't think it's in their range of study.

Let’s all get ready to be shocked when we find out they do.