The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
Lasers used in laser vomits are well over 3 seconds of CD, add in the laser duration and they pretty much still cool 14 heat, allowing them to fire the next volley as early regardless. If anything, it only addresses the preemptive cooling, but really amounts to practically little. The point of coolshot is to let out another hot-stuff early, and if you haven't noticed, their changes hardly addresses a thing -- so it's dumb.
You are discounting the possibility of the coolshot being used to bring the heat leavel from above 100% to sub 100% in a short span of time. With the change, you punish vomit builds for hard pushing the heat cap more then what they did before.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
You know what would have been effective? Cooling 24 heat over 12 seconds -- its still worth our money and cools an adequate amount of heat, but it wouldn't be at an insane rate of dissipation that effectively allows really hot alphas in quick successions without
Then you open another can of worms by giving consistent heat generators like the Octo AC2 Dire Wolf or quad UltraAC5 Slepnir of augmenting their cooling, allowing them to sustain DPS. Even cooling as minor as an extra 1 EDHS can have a significant impact. You would only be creating another monster.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
There's more to the game than aiming, such as positioning. And as far as i'm concerned, be it 45 degree, 25 degree, or 12.5 degree of cone to lock, you still need to put your reticle at the general direction of your target.
I agree that streaks shouldn't be a death-sentence to a light mech, but merely a counter. That being said, it's stupid to blanket nerf every other homing weapons to achieve that. It's ******* dumb.
I refer back to my point, which you failed to address, this change makes it so that a greater amount of player input is required to attain and maintain locks. In my opinion you sound very adverse to actually putting any effort into you gameplay.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
Lol, just lol. I'm not sure if we're playing the same game and weapon systems.
First off, I don't care about how many nerfs you might have seen, we're discussing about the potential impact of said changes in game as it is currently, in which we -- the experienced -- could provide a properly educated prediction, and by that we predicted that LRMs are nerfed to the ground as a result of this change in Artemis.
So far you have demonstrated very little understanding of how changes will impact the game. Reading through your historical posts, your "balance suggestions" have been outlandish, poorly conceived and show a blatent disregard towards conventional video game balance and lore accuracy(For example, prior to this you wanted to remove ATM minimum range and increase tracking strength, turning them into giant super streaks, when I asked how that was remotely balanced, you responded with "they fire in streams" as if that in any way balances them). Unless you can back it up your "prediction" amounts to little more than an opinion that doesn't even consider the wider context of the changes.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so let me break this down for you:
You need lock to effectively land LRMs, dumb-fire is either being lucky or target being extra dumber than usual, thus getting faster lock means getting out LRMs faster to respond to targets.
First off, from what I have seen I might as well be lectured on Uk Housing Law by a toddler, so don't even try and act condescending towards me. Secondly as far as my testing shows Artemis applies to the base value of lock on time, so there are no multiplicative modifiers. Which means Artemis on it's own had an approx 0.25S impact on your lock on speed. When stacked with TAG, lock on speed was reduced to 0.5S approx. Before Aretemis supplanted the lock on time bonus of NARC, but as Artemis only tightens spread now(still an incredibly useful feature which you seem to dismiss out of hand) you, as an LRM boat, will have to actually do some work by bringing a TAG and actual look to line up shots on NARCd targets.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
Another facet of this is that LRMs takes usually a long time to land, that means there's plenty of chances to break lock and the subsequent job of trying to reacquire lock -- you need constant lock to land your LRMs by the way. And now with the changes in the Lock-Cone, that means that you'd be breaking lock a lot more frequently, and the reduced Lock-Speed means it's even harder to get locks.
It takes at minimum 16 skill nodes to get 100% radar deprivation, and generally speaking, for some mechs that means 11 skill nodes they won't be using. Essentially, LRMS deplete 12% of a players maximum number of skills if they want to break lock after going into cover AND that's not a sure fire way to completely avoid LRMs as they will still to the point where the target was before the break, so slower, less mobile mechs will still eat a few salvos even if they duck behind cover.
The6thMessenger, on 21 August 2018 - 05:38 AM, said:
So the crux of this nerf is that Artemis is not only hard to get locks, it's even hard to maintain locks -- effectively nerfing every other homing weapon to oblivion.
I completely disagree, lock on missiles will maintain exact functionality as they do pre patch and nothing will change except ECM mechs being able to blanket more of their team. For my example I call back to December 2012 when ECM was first introduced. LRMs dealt 1.7 damage per missile at the time to make up for the borked hit reg, but they were still undeniably strong. ECM was introduced and it killed all lockons, and I mean killed. The only operable missile caddies were Commando 2Ds and Raven 3Ls, both which needed TAGs. The popular Streak boat, Catapult A1 was forced out of the meta overnight(though it soon came back as the SplatCat) LRMs were a thing of the past, as you would see entire lances drop in Atlas DDCs.
I think I've made my point.
Joshua McEvedy, on 21 August 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:
Which is a 180 degree reversal from what Paul said two years ago when he nerfed ECM range from the original 120 meters down to 90 meters----"ECM was not meant to cover the entire force."
Remember that, Paul? Now we're back to 120 meters, which is where it should have stayed in the first place.
Mmmmmmmm Spot on.