98 replies to this topic

[K O Z A K]

Vellron2005, on 27 August 2018 - 12:11 AM, said:

So, what I'm seeing in game is the fact that LRM+narc combos were just fine, and were rarely played, until a few large units decided to over-use and pervert the combo and show PGI just how deadly it can be, so PGI would nerf it..

Keep in mind that those are the same people who were extra quick to bully others for even using LRMs just a few weeks prior..

So what happened? LRM haters use LRMs too much, creates outrage, so LRMs get nerfed.

LRM haters happy with nerfed LRMs and mega-buffed ECM.. Regular LRM users miserable.

My point being - anything can be made to seem OP A.F. if you let big units and comp players pervert it, over-use it, and exploit it.

They tricked PGI into making LRMs even harder to use and now we have a weapon that greatly encourages staying back and waiting for locks, because you can't be very effective at getting your own locks (artemis nerf, ECM buff), and begging for locks from dedicated spotters.

Great move eh?

P.S. Don't tell me getting your own locks is easy.. Even if you have full sensor tree, you still need 5+ seconds to lock an ECM mech, and by the time you lock it, it's out of LOS and you lose the lock.. BAP is useless cose there is too much ECM on the field, and you can't counter all of them. You only counter one, and there are usually 3-4 overlapping ECMs At best, you get to fire one alpha, and then pray it doesn't have AMS.. Also, TAG is ineffective on big LRM carriers, because of how slow they are, and using it means you fire direct, and then you might as well use ATMs, and NARC is ineffective cose' of it's range and the tendency to not stick even with a direct hit, and to use it, you need close-up hits, and big LRM carriers are to slow for that and die.

If you haven't noticed that's how pgi makes a lot of their balance decisions. Not based on what the avg players can do but more so on how top players "pervert" (correctly use to all its capability) playstyles. Ppc/gauss poptarting wasnt basically deleted from the game because your run of the mill tier 4 poptarted moving targets at 1000m

[Buster Machine 0]

The current lurms feel like... training wheels to teach players proper tracking so that they can better use direct fire weapons in the future.

[Stinger554]

Gen Lee, on 26 August 2018 - 07:56 AM, said:

The problem is that ATMs were supposed to have Artemis built into them from the start, but apparently they found a bug that let players also select Artemis upgrade that further increased the bonuses. When they removed the bug, they also broke ATMs by removing those same bonuses that were built in. They could buff ATMs in some way if they can't fix the bug without also removing those bonuses from ATMs, but that would end up turning ATMs into a different weapon than before. I never knew the bug existed, because I never found Artemis useful on any of the mechs I've run. I've always preferred ATMs over LRMs anyways, and never saw the point in spending money on Artemis if it didn't affect ATMs anyways (which was what I thought).

So, they fix one bug, but created another one in the process. To be honest, this could have been avoided had each homing missile system been coded with it's own locking mechanism, Hopefully this is something the devs can learn from going forward.

Perhaps you missed where I said that the Artemis bonuses are inherent inside ATMs base stats. The Art upgrade was never supposed to affect ATMs(or streaks). The fact that they did/do was/is not intended and all of Art bonuses are rolled into the weapon system stats.

They are not tied to that upgrade toggle. So PGI removing the lock-on bonus from Art upgrades did not affect ATMs other than closing a loophole to get better lock-on time.

Edited by Stinger554, 28 August 2018 - 08:59 AM.

[Hiten Bongz]

Stinger554, on 28 August 2018 - 08:58 AM, said:

PGI removing the lock-on bonus from Art upgrades did not affect ATMs other than closing a loophole to get better lock-on time.

Wrong, they gave the same nerfs to the integrated Artemis too, so lock time got reduced even without stacking extra Artemis.

[Stinger554]

Hiten Bongz, on 28 August 2018 - 11:49 AM, said:

Wrong, they gave the same nerfs to the integrated Artemis too, so lock time got reduced even without stacking extra Artemis.

There is no integrated Artemis...it's just weapon stats...which were not changed....

[Gen Lee]

Stinger554, on 28 August 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

There is no integrated Artemis...it's just weapon stats...which were not changed....

PGI has already recently stated that ATMs did in fact have Artemis built in as part of their core mechanics. The problem was that selecting Artemis in the missile guidance selection box in the mechlab also gave additional bonuses to the ATMs. When they removed that bug, they also removed those core mechanisms inherent to ATMs, which removed 2/3 of ATMs bonuses altogether. All that's left of ATMs bonuses now is decreased missile spread that has also been previously nerfed.

Chris Lowrey, on 20 August 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

ATMs are considered to have Artemis baked into their core stats. This change will not affect their spread values as they where not affected by the Artemis upgrade just like MRM's and Rocket launchers. This will only affect the lock on angle and lock times.

Edited by Gen Lee, 28 August 2018 - 03:22 PM.

[Uhtred the Pagan]

Mystere, on 23 August 2018 - 03:23 AM, said:

That so-called "better-aim" only applies to those who used missiles on the front line. Those using LRMs from the back were barely affected. THAT is what is causing the current outcry. Instead of encouraging front line missile use, the latest patch discouraged it in favor of back fielders.

Man that feels good to see im not the only one who understands that.
But the biggest problem is the buff to ECM, combined with everything else - decreased lock accuracy and longer locking time means WAY TOO MUCH face time required to lock a target under ECM. To the point where its not even worth trying most of the time cause youll lose your trade badly.

Edited by Uhtred the Pagan, 28 August 2018 - 08:04 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 23 August 2018 - 03:23 AM, said:

That so-called "better-aim" only applies to those who used missiles on the front line. Those using LRMs from the back were barely affected. THAT is what is causing the current outcry. Instead of encouraging front line missile use, the latest patch discouraged it in favor of back fielders.

I know right?

PGI didn't want the LRMs to be dead-weight, yet they nerf precisely what playstyle is making it the least bit relevant. But no, PGI's all like "**** you frontliners", and "lets nerf Artemis too for good measure".

I remember when Vellron patronized me post-patch:

Spoiler

Vellron2005, on 22 August 2018 - 05:13 AM, said:

Ah.. I see your understanding is catching up..

Artemis being useless for LRMs, and the tonnage better serving a larger tube count or ammo count is not a new thing.. it was like that for a very very long time..

That's really only applicable to Background LRMers (you know who you are), the lock-speed bonus was rather important for the front-liners that get their own locks.

[MischiefSC]

Except it still takes less time to lock and shoot than a single CERML burn. If you actually are on the front line at 300-500m you're getting lock, shooting and missiles on target before a HLL burn finishes. At 300m you don't even need to hold the lock; they'll end up on target on anything but a light.

[Hiten Bongz]

MischiefSC, on 28 August 2018 - 10:01 PM, said:

Except it still takes less time to lock and shoot than a single CERML burn

No. CERML burn is 1.25s while it takes ~2s to acquire a lock without lock boosts from Artemis; and ~4s if they have ECM.

MischiefSC, on 28 August 2018 - 10:01 PM, said:

getting lock, shooting and missiles on target before a HLL burn finishes

No. A HLL burn is 1.55s which is only just to starting to approach how long it takes to acquire a lock. Then it's another second of travel time per ~200m. It's going to take over 3 seconds for "lock, shoot, and missiles on target" even from only 300m away, and that is absolute best case scenario. If the target has ECM, it's well over 5 seconds for missiles on target from 300m.

Uhtred the Pagan, on 28 August 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

But the biggest problem is the buff to ECM, combined with everything else - decreased lock accuracy and longer locking time means WAY TOO MUCH face time required to lock a target under ECM. To the point where its not even worth trying most of the time cause youll lose your trade badly.

It is a big problem, especially with fast ECM lights. You're looking at well over 5 seconds of stare down before your first volley even has a chance to hit and that's only if you can track your target absolutely perfectly. And god forbid if you move your crosshair one pixel outside of their hitbox, you'll instantly lose your lock and have to do it all again.

Edited by Hiten Bongz, 29 August 2018 - 01:07 AM.

[Mystere]

The6thMessenger, on 28 August 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

I know right?

PGI didn't want the LRMs to be dead-weight, yet they nerf precisely what playstyle is making it the least bit relevant. But no, PGI's all like "**** you frontliners", and "lets nerf Artemis too for good measure".

I remember when Vellron patronized me post-patch:

Spoiler

That's really only applicable to Background LRMers (you know who you are), the lock-speed bonus was rather important for the front-liners that get their own locks.

Frankly, I really cannot find where PGI explicitly stated what they meant by:

Quote

to make LRMs more effective at the core role we wish to see them occupy within the game

For all we know, that so-called core role is IDF, and that what we are asking for -- better front line performance -- is outside of their intended role.

Can someone point to the most recent statement by PGI on this?

This game really needs centralized and easy-to-access documentation.

Edited by Mystere, 29 August 2018 - 06:35 AM.

[Stinger554]

Gen Lee, on 28 August 2018 - 03:16 PM, said:

PGI has already recently stated that ATMs did in fact have Artemis built in as part of their core mechanics. The problem was that selecting Artemis in the missile guidance selection box in the mechlab also gave additional bonuses to the ATMs. When they removed that bug, they also removed those core mechanisms inherent to ATMs, which removed 2/3 of ATMs bonuses altogether. All that's left of ATMs bonuses now is decreased missile spread that has also been previously nerfed.

Did you read that quote?

Quote

ATMs are considered to have Artemis baked into their core stats.

Baked into their core stats; which means the upgrade was never supposed to affect anything and that changing that upgrade doesn't affect ATMs' stats. That the Artemis upgrade did is/was a bug. Nothing was removed....it's baked into their core stats independent of the Artemis upgrade.

I don't know any way to make this simpler for you.

[NUMBERZero1032]

Here is a prime example of why hopefully this will encourage good aim.

Poor sod couldn't hit the broad side of a barn torso. The Awesome was XL, too, I guarantee it.
https://youtu.be/gGe8sJuxR9I

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 29 August 2018 - 06:33 AM, said:

For all we know, that so-called core role is IDF, and that what we are asking for -- better front line performance -- is outside of their intended role.

Probably. But if that's the case, then it's truly going to be a dead-weight in most cases. They addressed nothing.

Mystere, on 29 August 2018 - 06:33 AM, said:

This game really needs centralized and easy-to-access documentation.

And more responsible developers.

[Gen Lee]

Stinger554, on 29 August 2018 - 11:46 AM, said:

Did you read that quote?



Baked into their core stats; which means the upgrade was never supposed to affect anything and that changing that upgrade doesn't affect ATMs' stats. That the Artemis upgrade did is/was a bug. Nothing was removed....it's baked into their core stats independent of the Artemis upgrade.

I don't know any way to make this simpler for you.

You can't make it simpler, you're just still not getting it. I'll make it simple for you.

1) ATMs had Artemis built into them. This meant that ATMs by default were meant to have quicker lock times and better missile tracking than LRMs from the very beginning.

2) ATM has Artemis built in, whether you had Artemis selected or not. Artemis was supposed to only give quicker locks and better missile tracking if you had a LOS on your target when you fired the missiles. As long as you kept the lock after losing LOS, the better missile tracking was present. Artemis was giving quicker locks and better missile tracking without LOS, which was not how it's supposed to work.

2) PGI found that also selecting Artemis in the missile guidance selection box in the Mechlab was also giving further benefits to ATMs that already had the very same mechanics built in. This was not intended.

3) Removing the quicker lock-ons and better missile tracking from Artemis also removed 2 out of the 3 core mechanics that were built into ATMs. For some reason, they didn't just fix the bug that allowed Artemis to affect ATMs. Instead, they also nerfed the hell out of Artemis, and in doing so, nerfed ATMs as well.

4) Since they didn't code but one lock-on mechanism, there's no way to give ATMs their quicker locks and better missile tracking without Artemis at this moment. This means ATMs are pretty much worthless right now, because they are meant to be used at close range for best results, and at close range, by the time you get your own locks, you're probably going to take more damage than the action was worth. If the target is under the protection of ECM, forget trying to get a lock. It's not worth trying even with a TAG laser, because if the target is a light, you'll probably never get a lock. If it's a heavy or assault you're targeting, the ECM won't let you get a lock before the target has trashed you for taking the time to get a lock. You're better off just poking and dumbfiring your ATMs if the large mech is just standing there.


That's just the story, more or less, about how ATMs got royally screwed over, and Streaks got shafted big time as well. People asked for a solution to the LRM boats that sit way in the back, and instead we pretty much got the complete opposite. How ironic that they just now discovered the Artemis bug while most people are complaining about LRM boats firing from 1,000m away. Hell, even the lock-on cone was nerfed in such a way that literally encourages the very thing we've been telling PGI needs addressing. IMO, they should have left Artemis alone until they could figure out how to rework it without breaking something else.

Edited by Gen Lee, 29 August 2018 - 08:11 PM.

[Michelle Branch]

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

Narc, no counter play, hardly.
1) Don't get narced - Been Narced twice all month, low velocity like a really slow invisible ppc.

Well this is why folks typically run those cancer stealth builds where 90% of the community can't make out shifting terrain features. If I don't see it, and I get narced (on polar or alpine) I'm more than likely dead.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

2) Hug an ECM mech or ask an ECM mech for a ECM hug

Luck of the draw if we do get an ecm mech. Worst if the ecm mech gets narced and now we're both pretty boned.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

3) Find hard cover, a lerm assualt mech team mate will do in a pinch

+1 this comment.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

4) Get out of missile range.

You know damn well I like playing assaults, usually. It's not that easy.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

5) AMS shoots narc

NARC has more missile health, and it doesn't prevent a point blank range narc anyways.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

6) Kill the narcer before you get narced.

Again, I would love to if I see it. If they take a path that doesn't cross mine, and no one says a damn thing, consider that a big green weenie to me.

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

7) Use Radar derp unless you don't have the skill points coz you were FORCED to invest in weapon heat gen skrills

I've always invested in radar derp, but that again, doesn't prevent narc

OZHomerOZ, on 25 August 2018 - 10:09 PM, said:

There's 7 ways to counter the narc mech next time it tries to touch you in the bad place.

7 soft counters. All of which are countered by pretty much by map specifics like Alpine and Polar, whereas Grim is somewhat doable depending on the position, caustic has the same issue as grim. Just my take homie.

[VonBruinwald]

If we're looking to roll back bug fixes because they unintentionally benefitted weapon systems;



I'm just saying...

Edited by VonBruinwald, 04 September 2018 - 02:15 PM.

[Burke IV]

NUMBERZero1032, on 29 August 2018 - 12:32 PM, said:

Here is a prime example of why hopefully this will encourage good aim.

Poor sod couldn't hit the broad side of a barn torso. The Awesome was XL, too, I guarantee it.
https://youtu.be/gGe8sJuxR9I

It didnt look like teh dude knew how to use his mechs arms. I mean im assuming the hellfire has arms but how are you going to help somebody aim when they just dont know how to play?

[cougurt]

Gen Lee, on 29 August 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

You can't make it simpler, you're just still not getting it. I'll make it simple for you.

1) ATMs had Artemis built into them. This meant that ATMs by default were meant to have quicker lock times and better missile tracking than LRMs from the very beginning.

2) ATM has Artemis built in, whether you had Artemis selected or not. Artemis was supposed to only give quicker locks and better missile tracking if you had a LOS on your target when you fired the missiles. As long as you kept the lock after losing LOS, the better missile tracking was present. Artemis was giving quicker locks and better missile tracking without LOS, which was not how it's supposed to work.

2) PGI found that also selecting Artemis in the missile guidance selection box in the Mechlab was also giving further benefits to ATMs that already had the very same mechanics built in. This was not intended.

3) Removing the quicker lock-ons and better missile tracking from Artemis also removed 2 out of the 3 core mechanics that were built into ATMs. For some reason, they didn't just fix the bug that allowed Artemis to affect ATMs. Instead, they also nerfed the hell out of Artemis, and in doing so, nerfed ATMs as well.

4) Since they didn't code but one lock-on mechanism, there's no way to give ATMs their quicker locks and better missile tracking without Artemis at this moment. This means ATMs are pretty much worthless right now, because they are meant to be used at close range for best results, and at close range, by the time you get your own locks, you're probably going to take more damage than the action was worth. If the target is under the protection of ECM, forget trying to get a lock. It's not worth trying even with a TAG laser, because if the target is a light, you'll probably never get a lock. If it's a heavy or assault you're targeting, the ECM won't let you get a lock before the target has trashed you for taking the time to get a lock. You're better off just poking and dumbfiring your ATMs if the large mech is just standing there.


That's just the story, more or less, about how ATMs got royally screwed over, and Streaks got shafted big time as well. People asked for a solution to the LRM boats that sit way in the back, and instead we pretty much got the complete opposite. How ironic that they just now discovered the Artemis bug while most people are complaining about LRM boats firing from 1,000m away. Hell, even the lock-on cone was nerfed in such a way that literally encourages the very thing we've been telling PGI needs addressing. IMO, they should have left Artemis alone until they could figure out how to rework it without breaking something else.

ATMs never had faster locks than LRMs or streaks. literally the only thing that has changed is that they removed the artemis exploit which was providing ATMs and streaks with improved lock times and tracking strength that they weren’t meant to have in the first place. artemis, as it applies to ATMs (i.e. their baseline stats), was not affected in any way.