50 replies to this topic

[ANOM O MECH]

Increasing velocity is something I have been saying needed to be done for quite some time so I am happy.

They needed the help to actually have an opportunity to actually reach the intended target. Have actually felt bad on Alpine especially as I would actually have time to fire my lasers and side step missiles as they harmlessly flew by.

By no means or stretch am I an lrm advocate nor do I use them very often, but I am in the camp of wanting weapons in game to actually have some use and be at least semi viable.

What is concerning is PGI's caution when it comes to 'lower levels of play'. I understand why there is concern, but there needs to be a different approach to tweaking weapons than the current nerf into obscurity model we currently have (cspls I miss you <3).

Really think it is time to address player behaviour or tendencies over weapon tweaking. Understandably to someone learning or otherwise stuck in lower tiers, facing seven or eight lurm mechs is a problem. That is why I am really hoping PGI will consider limiting the amount of lurm mechs on the field.

This could do a couple of things. First too many lurmers in queue would mean longer wait times for those folks and could encourage players to expand into other weapons systems to reduce wait times. It would also help balance out matches. There would be no more facing a stacked lrm team on Polar, or that same team getting rolled on Mining (when lucky enough to get that map).

Guess I am near the point of having to create one of those twit accounts I keep hearing the young folks going on about so I can bug Russ about it....

[Brain Cancer]

tker 669, on 16 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

Really think it is time to address player behaviour or tendencies over weapon tweaking. Understandably to someone learning or otherwise stuck in lower tiers, facing seven or eight lurm mechs is a problem. That is why I am really hoping PGI will consider limiting the amount of lurm mechs on the field.

I'm sure that's fair. I assume we're also limiting lasers and ballistics too? ATMs? Streaks? We have to encourage diversity in our giant robot battlespace. Better make sure we do that for airstrikes and arty, too.

You want to make the babby's sandbox super-safe, all Trials get AMS with a decent amount of ammo. If not two or three, depending on chassis. T5 will be virtually lurm-free save for the people who, y'know, actually learn to do more than stand behind cover, lock a square and spam the fire button. Much simpler than giving a player longer load/wait times for the sin of lobbing LRMs into the potato fields.

[Kroete]

tker 669, on 16 April 2018 - 08:56 PM, said:

This could do a couple of things. First too many lurmers in queue would mean longer wait times for those folks and could encourage players to expand into other weapons systems to reduce wait times. It would also help balance out matches. There would be no more facing a stacked lrm team on Polar, or that same team getting rolled on Mining (when lucky enough to get that map).

2 lrm boats,
2 gauss/ppc snipers
2 laservomits
2 mg boats
2 srm/atm/mrm boats
Together with the weightclasses and tiers.
And we will have at least 15 minutes queue time, even if the queue is full.
Great idea, especially with the knowhow pgi has showen with the old elo and the new tier system.

Or do you realy suggesting to limit only one of the worst weapons mwo have?
If so, it says a lot about you and i can just answer with the following:
No ams, no cry!

[Thorqemada]

The velocity increase of LRM is pretty much unrecognizeable, havent seen any remarkable advantage coming from it.
Especially not on Oceanic were you have trouble to get locks in time when you play from outside oceanic regions.

Edited by Thorqemada, 19 April 2018 - 02:14 AM.

[VeeOt Dragon]

after reading through a few of the ideas I have seen the only one I think would make LRMs better without making them overpowered is the fire and forget. I do think the speed buff is a step in the right direction and I do agree with PGI taking it one small step at a time. no one (even someone like me who is an Ex-Army Artilleryman who loves some indirect fire) want them to be overpowered only to get nerfed back into the ground.

in the end though it doesn't bother me much since I will be abandoning MWO soon in favor of Battletech

[General Solo]

Velocity buff was enough to make me play my lerms again
Thx PGI

[OmniFail]

No disrespect Oz, Your amongst my favorite players to drop with.

But LRM5's and 10s are still useless against AMS and the spread on the higher launchers is still to much to get real kills. Don't take my word for it check it out for yourself.

All the velocity did was decrease the time for far out potatoes to roll out of the way.

[General Solo]

I dont have much issues with AMS

The only lermer I run is a Quad lrm10 wid narc Summoner.

If I group fire, it gets through AMS Guid.

If you boat LRM 5 or LRM 10's and group fire, your sending 30 or 40 missiles.
No way is AMS gonna stop 30 or 40 missiles group fired even if fired from Lrm5/10 launchers.

If I chain fire, it ties up the AMSer allowing the other lerms to hit it, I think thats fair.

Sure if only 20 or less missiles are fired, AMS (especially triple AMS) will shoot a large percentage of each volley.
In that case bring moar lerms

Its the price you pay especially on generalist builds with a single LRM10 or dual LRM5 launchers, which I think is fair.

[Appogee]

Lateral thought:

Instead of constantly complaining about the need to buff LRMs, perhaps Forrest should just throw away his crutches and get up there on the frontline with the rest of us, laying down self-targeted direct fire and being a useful member of the team.

[Brain Cancer]

Appogee, on 20 April 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

Lateral thought:

Instead of constantly complaining about the need to buff LRMs, perhaps Forrest should just throw away his crutches and get up there on the frontline with the rest of us, laying down self-targeted direct fire and being a useful member of the team.

You know what a direct-firing LRM user is right now?

An inferior ATM boat. Speaking as one of those regular ATM missile boaters, I'd rather see LRMs brought up to something closer to my level. They need buffs, because Paul has decided in his infinite wisdom and words that LRMs are deliberately understatted to prevent them from making the truly derpy explode too easily- and it's easier to leave things broken than to bring them up to spec.

And if you really want to whinge about guided missile users being non-useful and "crutched", we could always get into one of those silly tinkle contests on Jarl's list and I can point out my stats, then yours, over a thousand accounts below it. LRM players can be sucktacular. They can be good. The multiplier on that skill is the worst for any weapon in the game, and that's the problem. The "crutch" is actually the shackle of a weapon designed to give you as little as possible for the gitguds, including deliberately nerfing it's direct-fire capacity (Artemis nerf), capacity to flick missiles (degrees from cursor to break lock), and in general making it as attractive as possible to play with them badly, reinforcing the entire process of "lurms suck".

Heck, I know they suck. But the fault lies in the poorly designed and then deliberately sabotaged weapon, having whatever vestiges of skill improving and rewards from getting up there with the gang systematically excised from LRM launchers. The complaints are justified. The weapon is badly underpowered at this point, and the velocity boost is the first sign of any reversal of that trend in years.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 20 April 2018 - 03:21 PM.

[General Solo]

LRM's with narc far from sux
If yo gunna boat tubes without support stuff and expecting locks from others
different story

You min/max your strat with target decay it works guid
sure not direct fire guid, but lerms get auto aim and indirect fire so thats fair IMO

Using a T4 alt for testing I feel slightly guilty even
But it makes me work when I get a crap map or I have a T1 game on my usual account.

At the moment IMO I dont think changes are needed much, if any changes happen they should be small

Must do moar testing

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 20 April 2018 - 09:31 PM.