154 replies to this topic

[Judah Malganis]

Whatever nerfs come down should encourage players to stay with the team and get visual locks on a target. The way it's proposed, it looks like doing one vs the other will make little mechanical difference, and thus encourage hiding, since why take the risk if there's no reward? If anything, there's should be a nerf to indirect locks, and a buff to direct ones.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

AMS is part of the problem IMO. It just makes it that much more difficult to properly balance LRMs. And especially ATMs which get absolutely crushed by AMS. Because the existence of AMS means those weapons need to be stronger than normal to compensate for AMS, otherwise they end up being too weak to be competitive.

Not certain about that. Current AMS does the job well, and have been doing it for many months, but I wouldn't say LRMs became stronger than normal to compensate for it. Current LRMs are not very competitive.

[The6thMessenger]

Mech Ranger, on 07 August 2018 - 07:49 PM, said:

i dont know why so many people cry about lrm~

if u think it's too imba , then get ur own lrm mech and see how good u r~

Hows about post like an adult than a child first?

Imba in what sense? OP? The **** are you even talking about? We've been over this countless of times in the forums, how "LRM OP" is usually shot down. Are you even reading?

It's not really that we're crying that it's OP, but rather it's UP and PGI's approach by nerfing Artemis, locking, TAG, and NARC, is precisely the opposite of helping the LRMs. That is the original post above is about.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 06:01 PM, said:

ECM is also similarly a problem. ECM never shouldve granted stealth. That was always a bad decision on PGI's part and one that shouldve been fixed by now. Instead of granting stealth, they should give ECM a third mode called ghost mode, that creates fake radar contacts and possibly even holographic copies of the mech using ghost mode.

Now this I agree with. Been telling PGI for five years that ECM stealth mechanics are bad for LRM balance, but PGI is deaf to good advice.

[Khobai]

El Bandito, on 07 August 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

Not certain about that. Current AMS does the job well, and have been doing it for many months, but I wouldn't say LRMs became stronger than normal to compensate for it. Current LRMs are not very competitive.

You misunderstood. I was saying LRMs need to be stronger than normal because of AMS/ECM. The fact theyre not stronger than normal to compensate for AMS/ECM is one of the reasons theyre not competitive.

If a weapon has counters then it has to be stronger than other weapons without counters. Otherwise it just ends up being a weaker weapon overall. Thats the problem with AMS and ECM.

The existence of AMS/ECM makes it that much more difficult to balance LRMs. Because you have to balance them both against those equipments but also when those equipments arnt used.

Thats why im generally against rock paper scissors type interactions.

Edited by Khobai, 07 August 2018 - 08:12 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

You misunderstood. I was saying LRMs need to be stronger than normal because of AMS. The fact theyre not stronger than normal to compensate for AMS is one of the reasons theyre not competitive.

If a weapon has counters then it has to be stronger than weapons without counters. Otherwise it just ends up being a weaker weapon overall. Thats the problem with AMS and ECM.

So how do you make an indirect-fire capable stronger?

Personally I'd rather just make it direct-fire. Make NARC and TAG a necessity for indirect-fire, and so they have a reason to be powerful.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

You misunderstood. I was saying LRMs need to be stronger than normal because of AMS/ECM. The fact theyre not stronger than normal to compensate for AMS/ECM is one of the reasons theyre not competitive.

If a weapon has counters then it has to be stronger than weapons without counters. Otherwise it just ends up being a weaker weapon overall. Thats the problem with AMS and ECM.

There is one more aspect of LRM that needs to be said--the reliance on teamwork and organized settings. Can't simply buff LRMs for the sake of balancing vs. AMS/ECM, when depending on the team the effect of LRMs can vary--especially in GQ/FP. IMO LRMs need to have their IDF aspect nerfed, in return for fire-and-forget mechanism--which will better allow personal involvement.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 07 August 2018 - 08:08 PM, said:

So how do you make an indirect-fire capable stronger?

Personally I'd rather just make it direct-fire. Make NARC and TAG a necessity for indirect-fire, and so they have a reason to be powerful.

thats more or less what I would do


nerf baseline indirect fire

buff artemis and direct fire lrms

buff indirect fire when tag/narc are used

I would also increase the cooldown and increase the damage per missile so they cant be spammed as much and penetrate armor better.

and lastly I think the spotter/tag/narc user should get credit for ~50% of the the damage done by indirect lrms. the person taking all the risk should share in the reward of indirect fire. If indirect fire requires both mechs then both mechs should share in the rewards.

El Bandito, on 07 August 2018 - 08:14 PM, said:

Can't simply buff LRMs for the sake of balancing vs. AMS/ECM

exactly. thats why I said counters like AMS/ECM are a problem. because you have to balance LRMs around the assumption that AMS/ECM are sometimes going to be present in a game. But you also have to balance LRMs under the assumption they wont always be present in the game. And thats paradoxical.

LRMs are impossible to perfectly balance as long as they have counters like AMS/ECM.

Edited by Khobai, 07 August 2018 - 08:26 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 07 August 2018 - 08:14 PM, said:

I would also increase the cooldown and increase the damage per missile so they cant be spammed as much and penetrate armor better.

So basically the tweak i have been suggesting over and over before?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Buff the Tartical Awarness of the Players and the IQ ..most useless Tonnage for the team ..
in a Game thats lost the most Players its come the Moment who only the Bottom of Players in the Game ...the news , tha Bads and the Handfull Fans thats never leave

[Phoenix 72]

I myself think we will not get anywhere with a constant stream of nerfs/buffs. It will make it really hard to get a decent balance and any new piece of equipment or change in any other part of the game will really upset the whole balance all over again.

I think one of the posters did have a pretty good idea. (Sorry, don't remember your name). Why don't any and all rewards get shared 50/50 between the lurm boat and the person that provided the tag? For Narc, let's say it is 25% for the Narcer and 75% for the lurm boat.

I think the prevalence of lurm boats is not because it is OP or UP, but because it is a (relatively) low effort weapon that allows even very new people to be fairly competetive. And it is devastating in the hands of a really good pilot. Some people use it because it is useful, others because they want those big numbers. And they benefit from someone else's work (Narc, Tag). Don't see a reason why the rewards should not be shared as well. This might also cause some of the people that do play it just for the huge rewards to rethink this.

[The Mysterious Fox]

Alkabides, on 07 August 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

I’ve been playing a lot of cyclops 10-q lately for fun. It’s different from what I usually play AND it’s condusive to sipping beers and ripping up armor. I always laugh at the yahoos that mew like sorry pathetic kittens about lrms when an UNBELIEVABLY strong deterrent exists: AMS. Yeah so you might not get that one extra erml or two, possibly ammo but it shuts down the lurm Fire HARD. Just because you are stupid and unwilling to trade a miniscule amount of tonnage for massive protection doesn’t make lrms game breaking, it just makes you easy prey and deserving of your lot in life: perma new game load screen. Much like when you got broken up with multiple times: it’s not lurms it’s your sorry good for nothing tail pipe. Adapt or die, your crying tears just feeds the beast beaches. Hahaha, I look forward to making you rage in match clowns.

not sure if /s because thats a huge misread on the game if so

[El Bandito]

Mech Ranger, on 07 August 2018 - 07:49 PM, said:

i dont know why so many people crying about lrm~

if u think it's too imba , then get ur own lrm mech and see how good u r~

u know what need be nerf? brainless ballstic~, all u need just click the button untill enemy down

Nah, lasers are far easier to use. Which is why they are getting a nerf.

[Vellron2005]

East Indy, on 07 August 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:

Speaking on a No Guts No Galaxy podcast today, Paul and Chris listed a number of changes they intend to make to LRMs in the August patch, so as to address player concerns about the weapon system.

None of the changes mentioned will address player concerns.

Since open beta, players generally dislike LRMs for two reasons, on the same principle: indirect fire at long range encourages low-effort play.

1. Players using LRMs en masse are encouraged to move well behind the team, reducing the number of 'Mechs that can present a front and share armor. Multiple LRM-boating 'Mechs can compound this problem.

2. Players targeted by LRMs, particularly players attempting to organize a push or maneuver away from cover, can be locked indefinitely by a single spotter, with few opportunities for return fire.

It's key that these effects occur disproportionately outside of group or unit play. Since solo queue consists of the wide majority of player activity, it's relevant to the game and most players. Yet, the focus of each nerf is on an element of play not seen regularly in solo queue, where problems exist, and not related to reasons for player dislike of LRMs.

Again: the focus of each nerf is on an element of play not seen regularly in solo queue, where problems exist, and not related to reasons for player dislike of LRMs.

Artemis nerf: Removing the tracking bonus and potentially the lock-on bonus affects direct locks and indirect locks equally. While it's the least problematic change with regard to indirect fire, because it's irrelevant, it simply reduces the value of Artemis. And that seems problematic in and of itself.

NARC nerf: Paul/Chris adduced footage of a NARC beacon being used to extreme effect in a Faction Warfare game. This is a near-total outlier. NARC is rarely seen at any level of play. What's more, NARC in practice is most effective as a team tool. Cooldown increase aside — what target-painter uses it on cooldown? — it reduces perceived value of NARC and reinforces the idea that an LRM 'Mech may as well hang in the back, firing without coordination.

TAG nerf: No details on mechanics changes, but this is fundamentally unwise. Reducing the value of TAG directly undercuts the incentive of a front-line, direct-fire, self-sufficient LRM player. It doesn't reinforce hanging in the back and perpetuating frustrating gameplay; it endorses it.

Lock zone nerf: Counterproductive in the most basic way, as it progressively punishes moving closer to a target.

ECM range buff: An ECM range boost makes LRMs less of a concern...for teams with ECM. As in the previous half-decade of this game, that balance between teams can swing wildly.

Low-effort, indirect fire is and always has been the problem with LRMs. Recent buffs to velocity and heat have cascaded a bit into more widespread usage. If PGI wants to maintain the absolute power of LRMs while shifting them to mechanics that make them less controversial, there is one mechanic to focus on: secondary locks/indirect fire. That means something like:

1. Nerfing lock time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

2. Nerfing tracking time from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

3. Nerfing missile spread from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

4. Nerfing missile damage from a secondary lock/indirect fire.

Make LRM Guy work for his locks. Make him work for his damage. Your proposed changes, Paul and Chris, won't do that.

Sadly, I didn't see the podcast, but from what I can gather, proposed changes aim to nerf LRMs into the ground..

I say - PTS!

After clan laser nerfs failed, It feels like they just wanna nerf someting to maintain the image they are working at balance, so they will nerf whatever most people won't complain about - the go-to beat-em-up-and-get-away-wirth-it weapons and scapegoat on-call - LRMs..

Not cool.

Also.. I really don't see where, when it comes to LRMs, "problems exist"?

From the two problems OP stated as main problems, being 1) LRM boats not sharing armor and 2) frontline pushers being "locked and focused down", proposed changes will never solve either.

1) No matter what you do to LRMs, as long as they are indirect fire, people will play them as such. I don't even think of taking my LRM boat into frontline where it's less effective, and have it shot up. Why would I EVER do that? Armor sharing is a strategy mostly propagated by people who want to facehug the enemy and need a distraction so as to not get shot-up themselves. That is not how artillery works, nor should it. People need to accept that when a LRM boat "shares armor", it is not doing it's job, it is effectively wasting itself.

Also, best LRM boats in the game are Assaults. Assaults are SLOW. If an assault moves into fire, it cannot easily escape. So if a LRM boat assault moves in to "share armor", it will probably lose a torso or more in seconds. So that is not good play for an Assault LRM boat. It is better spent raining on the enemy and keeping their heads down at maximum capacity.

You don't send a Howitzer to do the job of an Abrams.

So no amount of changes to LRMs, as long as they are indirect fire, will ever force me to play in the style of a pinata. And changing them to direct fire or ATM-like fire would make them - not LRMs.

2) Frontline pushers being focused down is not a thing exclusive to LRMs. If you are a slow assault that wants to move across the battlefield, you have to be in cover, otherwise, your mech will melt under a hail of gauss and ERLL fire. LRMs are hardly the only culprit to pushers dying in seconds in this game. So that's pure nonsense.

Also, in contrast to the "existing problems" of LRMs, we are talking about literally the WEAKEST CRAP WEAPONS SYSTEM IN THE GAME as presented by most top-tier tryhards. (I disagree, but most sadly don't)

So come-on? You people can't really tell me you're crying for noobtube nerfs? What will you be crying about next? Do we need to nerf hand actuators?

If anything, LRMs are finally in a good place right now. Actually useful in their intended role.

Message for the Balance Devs - guys, please stop this nonsense, stop fixing what ain't broken.

Edited by Vellron2005, 08 August 2018 - 12:05 AM.

[KoalaBrownie]

Eisenhorne, on 07 August 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

And that should be rewarded.... why?

Diversity of play styles means more people playing the game.

[Vellron2005]

Darakor Stormwind, on 07 August 2018 - 09:52 PM, said:

I myself think we will not get anywhere with a constant stream of nerfs/buffs. It will make it really hard to get a decent balance and any new piece of equipment or change in any other part of the game will really upset the whole balance all over again.

I think one of the posters did have a pretty good idea. (Sorry, don't remember your name). Why don't any and all rewards get shared 50/50 between the lurm boat and the person that provided the tag? For Narc, let's say it is 25% for the Narcer and 75% for the lurm boat.

I think the prevalence of lurm boats is not because it is OP or UP, but because it is a (relatively) low effort weapon that allows even very new people to be fairly competetive. And it is devastating in the hands of a really good pilot. Some people use it because it is useful, others because they want those big numbers. And they benefit from someone else's work (Narc, Tag). Don't see a reason why the rewards should not be shared as well. This might also cause some of the people that do play it just for the huge rewards to rethink this.

First off, I have 2 points to make on this one:

1) The idea of LRMs boat and spotter, be it a narc/tagger or just somebody who is giving you a lock by pressing R, sharing rewards, is a good idea.

Maybe we could solve the problem of LRM hate by making locking and maintaining locks profitable.

2) We really need to get rid of the notion that LRMs are a low-skill weapon. If you wanna do good, LRMs require just as much skill as literally any other weapon in the game.

I get it.. what a brawler sees is the LRM boat sitting away from the main fray, mashing the fire button. What he doesn't see is the constant repositioning, constant locking, minimap tracking, target tracking and re-targeting, finding missile trajectories that go over cover, making use of friendly locks, narcs and tags, and keeping out of danger by avoiding lights, predicting enemy movements as to keep out of harms way and many many other things that mechs with direct fire weapons that go "you got close to me, you die now" don't have to worry about.

Sure, you can sit 800 meters away, mash your fire button and hope you hit something. But you can do that with an ERLL mech, or a Gauss mech too. And you're not gonna do so well.

People that play like they're supposed to, do well. They should not get punished for bad players.

Edited by Vellron2005, 08 August 2018 - 12:20 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Sadly, I didn't see the podcast, but from what I can gather, proposed changes aim to nerf LRMs into the ground..

https://mwomercs.com...dcast-feedback/

There, they have a tl;dr version. [Redacted]

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I say - PTS!

Hopefully they get this right. But with their track record, i doubt it.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

After clan laser nerfs failed, It feels like they just wanna nerf someting to maintain the image they are working at balance, so they will nerf whatever most people won't complain about - the go-to beat-em-up-and-get-away-wirth-it weapons and scapegoat on-call - LRMs..

Not cool.

Well, they are kinda on point with the PTS, it's just excessively handled. That being said, the LRMs being a concern is legitimate, it's only their response that is idiotic.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Also.. I really don't see where, when it comes to LRMs, "problems exist"?

The one that it's hard to balance because of mechanics. It's hard to balance because balancing it at the veterans, means the LRMs will utterly annihilate the noobs.

Remember when I told you how you're being a Honey-Boo-Boo? It's precisely this, when you aren't exactly on the same page where people, who is actually better than you at playing the game, is telling you that the LRMs are weak.

I get that you love LRMs, as much as I love my Urbies. But there's a time for jokes, and time for serious discussion.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

From the two problems OP stated as main problems, being 1) LRM boats not sharing armor and 2) frontline pushers being "locked and focused down", proposed changes will never solve either.

Well, realistically neither would snipers and pokers. They could just hole up behind the team and potshots. The real kicker is that, the Indirect Fire of LRMs, just completely doubles down on this, and it's precisely what's holding it back.

As for proposed changes, well yeah PGI's planned nerf on TAG, NARC, Artemis, and Lock is stupid. I agree. Direct-fire bonuses is precisely why LRMs are being tolerated before.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

1) No matter what you do to LRMs, as long as they are indirect fire, people will play them as such.

Poorly i might add. But lets face it, proper LRMboats get their own locks.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I don't even think of taking my LRM boat into frontline where it's less effective, and have it shot up. Why would I EVER do that?

Probably because getting your own locks is more reliable and effective than someone elses' locks? Like a proper LRM boat.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Armor sharing is a strategy mostly propagated by people who want to facehug the enemy and need a distraction so as to not get shot-up themselves. That is not how artillery works, nor should it. People need to accept that when a LRM boat "shares armor", it is not doing it's job, it is effectively wasting itself.

There's safety in numbers, while poking alone means the enemy team could just focus on you, it means you die faster.

LRMs count hardly as artillery, and in the rather small arena we fight, it hardly matters. And why would having be a distraction that bad? Do you just expect people to poke endlessly from cover to cover? This ain't COD.

If you don't want to share armor, don't wear any. [Redacted]

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Also, best LRM boats in the game are Assaults. Assaults are SLOW. If an assault moves into fire, it cannot easily escape. So if a LRM boat assault moves in to "share armor", it will probably lose a torso or more in seconds. So that is not good play for an Assault LRM boat. It is better spent raining on the enemy and keeping their heads down at maximum capacity.

Ha! No, they aren't, this is precisely because of that.

Best way to LRM an assault? Put ACs and Lasers with them, 2x LRM15A + 3x UAC5 + 4x ERML actually works well for a Direwolf. Or just replace LRMs with ATMs.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

You don't send a Howitzer to do the job of an Abrams.

Again, LRMs aren't artillery. Arrow IV is artillery, Long Tom is artillery.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

So no amount of changes to LRMs, as long as they are indirect fire, will ever force me to play in the style of a pinata. And changing them to direct fire or ATM-like fire would make them - not LRMs.

Are they missiles that could hit long-range? Then they are long-range missiles, simple concept. Do you think LRMs hit less farther when they are relegated to direct fire? Guess what, they aren't even that effective long range right now precisely because there's too much time to go back into cover.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

2) Frontline pushers being focused down is not a thing exclusive to LRMs. If you are a slow assault that wants to move across the battlefield, you have to be in cover, otherwise, your mech will melt under a hail of gauss and ERLL fire. LRMs are hardly the only culprit to pushers dying in seconds in this game. So that's pure nonsense.

You do realize that the Indirect Fire means, they could just have one spotter, and a lot of other LRM boats eat up the improperly positioned *******? Whereas Gauss-Vomit mechs need proper angles to put out a shot right?

That means, LRM users can focus down an enemy, even when behind cover. Indirect-Fire man, and that is precisely the issue.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Also, in contrast to the "existing problems" of LRMs, we are talking about literally the WEAKEST CRAP WEAPONS SYSTEM IN THE GAME as presented by most top-tier tryhards. (I disagree, but most sadly don't)

And those who disagree with you have a handle of the game better, that's why they're the top-tier [Redacted]

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

So come-on? You people can't really tell me you're crying for noobtube nerfs? What will you be crying about next? Do we need to nerf hand actuators?

Nerfs? Jesus, nerfs? We're pissed because PGI thinks LRMs deserve the nerf, when they really need the god-damn buff. What you're telling is just far from the truth.

[Redacted]

Is this referring to PGI staff being demolished by LRMs instead? That would probably make sense, but stop the self-righteous BS all the same.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

If anything, LRMs are finally in a good place right now. Actually useful in their intended role.

Message for the Balance Devs - guys, please stop this nonsense, stop fixing what ain't broken.

If you want them terrible and barely effective for people who actually know how to play the game, sure they are just "fine".

This is exactly why other people make fun with people like you. Let me get this straight, we, the top-tier try-hards (and casual try-hards), want to actually play the LRMs in great effect, it is in our interest to get LRMs fixed. We don't just say LRMs are bad out of spite, we say it because we actually want to see it fixed.

We don't "make fun" of you out of spite either, we point out that you aren't exactly successful precisely because of a bad weapon system, you insist to be just fine. And quite frankly, it's not exactly a good omen to see a potential weak link within the team.

Vellron2005, on 08 August 2018 - 12:20 AM, said:

1) The idea of LRMs boat and spotter, be it a narc/tagger or just somebody who is giving you a lock by pressing R, sharing rewards, is a good idea.

Maybe we could solve the problem of LRM hate by making locking and maintaining locks profitable.

And done so by making TAG and NARC the only way to allow indirect fire, also maybe UAV. All the while, being relegated to direct-fire means LRMs are open to buffs.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

2) We really need to get rid of the notion that LRMs are a low-skill weapon. If you wanna do good, LRMs require just as much skill as literally any other weapon in the game.

Notion? No man, the LRMs require even more skill, for less results.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

I get it.. what a brawler sees is the LRM boat sitting away from the main fray, mashing the fire button.

What he doesn't see is the constant repositioning, constant locking, minimap tracking, target tracking and re-targeting, finding missile trajectories that go over cover, making use of friendly locks, narcs and tags, and keeping out of danger by avoiding lights, predicting enemy movements as to keep out of harms way and many many other things that mechs with direct fire weapons that go "you got close to me, you die now" don't have to worry about.

This is actually funny, and sad. Even if we gave that to you, there's still the issue of LRM boats being able to feast on the hardwork of others, while at the same time being less effective than direct-fire builds.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

Sure, you can sit 800 meters away, mash your fire button and hope you hit something. But you can do that with an ERLL mech, or a Gauss mech too. And you're not gonna do so well.

So why are you defending Indirect-Fire that also has a terrible track record? Also noobs can't aim.

Vellron2005, on 07 August 2018 - 11:35 PM, said:

People that play like they're supposed to, do well. They should not get punished for bad players.

Yes, I agree. That's why LRMs should actually be an effective weapon. Not some weapon system for the lulz.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 09 August 2018 - 05:26 PM.
nonconstructive/insults

[Rafe Yomin]

Big Tin Man, on 07 August 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

A big problem with LRM's is that most people don't know that there is a difference between a secondary lock and a primary lock as far as missile spread goes. If they could change the lock on visual from one shape/color to another to denote the difference between primary and secondary, that would help encourage lurm boats to move with the group.

Once the average pug can see and understand that primary and secondary locks differ, then we can buff/nerf primary and secondary locks to fine tune it.

Sooo, care to elaborate on that, or where to find the info? I don't really play LRM's, and i've read nothing about difference in locking behavior other than the speed of the lock.

This game really needs to update the info which is available to the players. Right now if you're checking google for information you get outdated information on the actual PGI pages. Finding information on ECM (just to give an example) leads you to a page from 2016 before the skill tree ..., If i were a new player, i'd think ECM has 180 range, and then adds 45% from the skill tree if i just check the "official" info. If people could actually read about what is what ... (I still don't know what exactly an active probe does ).

[KoalaBrownie]

LRMs are indirect fire weapons. Don't want to get focused down by LRMs? Then deal with the spotter.

[Savage Wolf]

Nightbird, on 07 August 2018 - 05:01 PM, said:

Add TC requirements for target lock sharing, easy.

Same as in lore.

You can always share targets in lore, no special equipment required and as long as we don't see the map before selecting mechs in QP, we don't need more convoluted ways of using weapon systems, when there are weapons that require none.