Reduced Maximum Altitude Of Lrm Flight Paths
#1
Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:38 AM
Proposed Solution: Reduce the maximum altitude of LRM flight paths, by setting a lower "cruising" altitude. When launched, an LRM will climb for a short distance to clear allies and nearby cover. Once the cruising altitude has been reached, the missiles then fly directly towards their target at this altitude until at range for their descent. This behavior would place missiles on more direct paths, reducing flight time and improving overall performance. Bonuses to velocity from skills or quirks would also apply more evenly, as the disparity between short range and long range flights would more closely resemble the targets' distances.
Likely Argument Against: Reducing LRM flight path altitude will impair the weapon's indirect fire capabilities, as the missiles will no longer be able to clear terrain as consistently. This is the defining feature of the weapon, which should be enhanced, not diminished.
Rebuttal: Though long-range indirect fire is the defining role of the weapon, that role is not only it's least effective in the game's current state, but also the least likely to be elevated into relevance through design changes (see Paul Inouye's latest interview in NoGutsNoGalaxy). The proposed reduction in flight path altitude would improve the LRM's performance as mid to long-range direct fire-support, where it appears to be most effective. This proposal builds upon the areas where LRMs are most consistent, at the cost of those areas where it is the least.
#2
Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:49 AM
#3
Posted 15 February 2018 - 02:52 AM
Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.
Edited by El Bandito, 15 February 2018 - 03:26 AM.
#4
Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:08 AM
All fixing LRM threads and purchases of LRM mechs are now defunct and suspended due to PGIs philosophy of n00b coddling. All bad LRMs are bad threads are no longer the fault of LRM boaters. It is a feature not a bug.
#5
Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:23 AM
OOOOOH LRM THREAD!
#6
Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:57 AM
Nerf the base tracking/spread on indirect LRMs by 25%-50% so its not as effective (but buff tag/narc by the same amount)
Also reduce the cooldown on LRMs by 20%-25% and increase the damage proportionally. That would make LRMs less spammy and youd have to time your volleys better.
Those changes arnt gonna bring about an LRMpocalypse even in T4-T5.
Edited by Khobai, 15 February 2018 - 04:04 AM.
#7
Posted 15 February 2018 - 04:11 AM
El Bandito, on 15 February 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:
Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.
What exactly is their strength other than taking peoples money?
#9
Posted 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM
sycocys, on 15 February 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:
But Like El Bandito said earlier IMO LRMs should not have arc at all if shot with LOS, like MW3 intro (2m 39s).
Edited by Curccu, 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM.
#10
Posted 15 February 2018 - 06:44 AM
Curccu, on 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM, said:
But Like El Bandito said earlier IMO LRMs should not have arc at all if shot with LOS, like MW3 intro (2m 39s).
That's fair, hadn't considered ATMs.
Oddly I have to agree with Paul on LRMs, there's just no way to make them a viable weapon without destroying T4/5. Maybe ever so slightly better, but if they can't be hard countered with afk items like AMS the people that can't figure out what rocks are will rage.\
-- well there's ways, but it would require them to rebuild the mech to mech communications system and add things like slotting targeting computers to share data/locks (which should be a thing anyhow tbh)
Edited by sycocys, 15 February 2018 - 06:45 AM.
#11
Posted 15 February 2018 - 06:45 AM
Curccu, on 15 February 2018 - 04:54 AM, said:
But Like El Bandito said earlier IMO LRMs should not have arc at all if shot with LOS, like MW3 intro (2m 39s).
but then again battletech and mwo-bt in general.. 2 very different things.
yeah, lurms in BT are no arty, it's only their "better than no shot at all" alternative shot @indirect fire
normally, they are fired directly at the enemy. with LOS.
yet in mwo ppl treat them like fire and forget arty, drop them from 900+ meters and wonder why nothing happens.. even after several years of ingame lurming most don't seem to know better @the majority of longtime-lurmers.
IMO lurms are fine where they are now; usable on some maps and quite decent if you lurm from 250 instead of extreme range.
any buff to them that makes them good in the hands of
Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 15 February 2018 - 06:47 AM.
#12
Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:05 AM
Reducing cruise altitude is a beard-scratching suggestion. Might just work.
Edited by Water Bear, 15 February 2018 - 07:06 AM.
#13
Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:19 AM
Captain Caveman DE, on 15 February 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:
They are awesome if map is called Polar Highlands, fine on some maps and almost 100% useless on some maps (Crimson, HPG, Rubellite, Mining) with massive amount of cover, tunnels & cave like formations... If we could shoot them with LOS without any arc they might get that fine category from some of those maps.
#14
Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:19 AM
El Bandito, on 15 February 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:
Plenty of people made proposals to PGI, on reducing altitude of missiles when the enemy is in sight, but PGI didn't do anything about it; most like they can't. Cause coding is not their strength.
I'm with El Bandito: they can't do anything about it....it appears the game engine is so messed up and over-clocked that additional capabilities take too much processing to render effectively. And, balance is downward to even save more processing potential as the battle space becomes even more 2D.....
They must not have the staff that are capable or, their business interest is only meck pack sales.......not customer game play satisfaction.....
#15
Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:29 AM
edit: Konivings video added with that swirling artemis pattern.
Edited by Curccu, 15 February 2018 - 07:33 AM.
#16
Posted 15 February 2018 - 09:44 AM
Because god forbid people can adapt and get good instead of whining "Nerf!!!" at ANYTHING that hurt their pinky toe when there so many counters to lurms. Its insane...
The day when any weapon could go competive, oh what a day that would be
#17
Posted 15 February 2018 - 10:26 AM
(zoidbergs away)
#18
Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:42 PM
A weapon system that virtually nobody uses it's no-brainer countermeasure (AMS) for is considered too dangerous to buff, because no-brainer targets would be in trouble- not even considering AMS in the first place.
And LRMs should at least fire flat in no-lock mode. It wouldn't be perfect, but it'd go a long way. Other than that, a velocity increase is seriously needed.
#19
Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:47 PM
#20
Posted 15 February 2018 - 12:49 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users