45 replies to this topic

[The pessimistic optimist]

Mystere, on 16 December 2018 - 02:45 PM, said:

Like the never-ending crying about Piranhas, right?

Piranha has loads of hard counters no reason to cry.

Edited by SirSmokes, 16 December 2018 - 03:00 PM.

[Mystere]

SirSmokes, on 16 December 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

Piranha has loads of hard counters no reason to cry.

Tell that to this guy.

[The6thMessenger]

justcallme A S H, on 16 December 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

As in a bunch of people that don't really understand game play were saying it was a good change/impact it will have?

If so then I would agree!

I like the idea, but as it appears to be all on it's own isn't exactly a good change nor have a good impact. PGI (at least Chris) know this too, and it's just obviously mistake on their part.

A lot of adjustment to the rest of the weapons should also be considered, such as giving the ATMs no-minimum-range if LRMs were to undertake the same arc if with LOS, cause ATMs would be devalued as hell. And for the IS side, streaks would be highly devalued against heavier mechs, so there should be a corresponding adjustment to Streaks as well.

I'd also change a few stuffs in the implementation, such as a 25-degree to 45-degree LOS obstruction validation, so that small obstructions such as hills or ridges won't be an issue. And finally, make LRMs faster to land by a considerable margin when fired with LOS. I suppose that would make a refreshing change for making LRMs a bit more direct fire.

[Y E O N N E]

I don't mind LRMs having a high angle of attack. I mind that they fire with enough DPS that the spread nature doesn't mean anything and that they cannot really be dodged if you've been NARC'd. On maps like Polar, Alpine, and Caustic, they are absolutely murderous for almost no risk to the user.

I think LRMs need to have their tracking severely weakened, and the rate of fire on the larger launchers needs to come down. Then we can play with having different angles for direct vs. indirect, improving missile velocity and/or nerfing AMS.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 03:28 PM, said:

I don't mind LRMs having a high angle of attack. I mind that they fire with enough DPS that the spread nature doesn't mean anything and that they cannot really be dodged if you've been NARC'd. On maps like Polar, Alpine, and Caustic, they are absolutely murderous for almost no risk to the user.

I think LRMs need to have their tracking severely weakened, and the rate of fire on the larger launchers needs to come down. Then we can play with having different angles for direct vs. indirect, improving missile velocity and/or nerfing AMS.

Yeah, I question the point of DPS on the LRMs role too. People like Nightbird just laughed as how "i made my statement seem like fact" than being a frame to my argument.

Personally, I'd reduce their DPS and increase damage/volley and chance to land, while reducing cooldown by a lot, make them more tactical.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 16 December 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I question the point of DPS on the LRMs role too. People like Nightbird just laughed as how "i made my statement seem like fact" than being a frame to my argument.

Personally, I'd reduce their DPS and increase damage/volley and chance to land, while reducing cooldown by a lot, make them more tactical.

Increasing damage per missile would increase DPS, so you'd have to factor that into your cooldown nerf to actually achieve lower DPS at the end of the equation.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 16 December 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Increasing damage per missile would increase DPS, so you'd have to factor that into your cooldown nerf to actually achieve lower DPS at the end of the equation.

Yes I did. It was like up to 8.5s CD for 1.7 damage/LRM, 120 ammo/ton.

Since LRMs would have 8.5/17/25.5/34 damage, they should now be more useful all on their own, but is secondary-weapon to builds like a grenade-launcher.

But nah man, "I just made my statements sound like fact".

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 16 December 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:

Yes I did. It was like up to 8.5s CD for 1.7 damage/LRM, 120 ammo/ton.

Since LRMs would have 8.5/17/25.5/34 damage, they should now be more useful all on their own, but is secondary-weapon to builds like a grenade-launcher.

But nah man, "I just made my statements sound like fact".

Those specific values reduce the LRM20 DPS by about 14%...while increasing the alpha strike by 70%. Well worth the trade.

Edited by FupDup, 16 December 2018 - 03:50 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 16 December 2018 - 03:50 PM, said:

Those specific values reduce the LRM20 DPS by about 14%...while increasing the alpha strike by 70%. Well worth the trade.

And not worth the loss in health to the game.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

And not worth the loss in health to the game.

Yeah, I just meant "worth the trade" in terms of min/max effectiveness for the user rather than healthy gameplay. In those terms it would be turbocancer.

Edited by FupDup, 16 December 2018 - 03:58 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 16 December 2018 - 03:58 PM, said:

Yeah, I just meant "worth the trade" in terms of min/max effectiveness for the user rather than healthy gameplay. In those terms it would be turbocancer.

I was adding to your comment is all.

I'm not interested in being maimed by single volleys of guided, indirect fire.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 03:59 PM, said:

I was adding to your comment is all.

I'm not interested in being maimed by single volleys of guided, indirect fire.

Considering how hard it is to land LRMs versus users, and when coordinated with enemy, it should be like that, an artillery. If they miss, it's even a harder blow to them.

Anyways, that's just an idea. I'm open to 1.35 damage/ LRM for something like 6.5s cooldown.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 December 2018 - 04:13 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

If you increase the velocity, it's less of a dice-roll that the shot will connect if you have LoS, and dumb-fire will be worth something.

LRMs are NOT artillery. They have no AoE, and they are not area denial. The last thing they should be is crippling.

Also, they currently do not miss often when played well.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:

If you increase the velocity, it's less of a dice-roll that the shot will connect if you have LoS, and dumb-fire will be worth something.

LRMs are NOT artillery. They have no AoE, and they are not area denial. The last thing they should be is crippling.

Also, they currently do not miss often when played well.

I think we're using very different uses of the term "artillery". As in I'm pointing out the fire-support role it's supposed to undertake.

As to "do not miss often", compare that to direct-fire that you don't have to play well.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of maiming people in a single volley too. But considering that you'll get maimed anyways, versus a fusillade of missiles that were just launched with wishful thinking, that a one well-placed volley, I think the well-placed volley is more deserving. It is after all, in the PoV of both shooting LRMs, and taking them.

If we take away the DPS role of LRMs without adding Alpha Role as replacement? Then really what is left?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 December 2018 - 05:00 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 16 December 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

I think we're using very different uses of the term "artillery". As in I'm pointing out the fire-support role it's supposed to undertake.

What does that even mean?

Quote

As to "do not miss often", compare that to direct-fire that you don't have to play well.

Yes you do.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of maiming people in a single volley too. But considering that you'll get maimed anyways,

According to what or whom?

Quote

versus a fusillade of missiles that were just launched with wishful thinking, that a one well-placed volley, I think the well-placed volley is more deserving. It is after all, in the PoV of both shooting LRMs, and taking them.

There is no such thing as a "well-placed volley" when the computer is the one doing the aiming.

Quote

If we take away the DPS role of LRMs without adding Alpha Role as replacement? Then really what is left?

Do you plan to take away indirect fire, too? MRMs are big damage and high DPS, but they are direct-fire only with zero guidance. LRMs can't be big damage, big DPS, and have guidance and indirect fire.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

What does that even mean?

Fire support, that's always had been the role of artillery. Either they break armor, or go over great distances.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

Yes you do.

Lol. Laser Vomit and ACs would have better chances.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

According to what or whom?

According to experience.

As in if you got a lot of LRM boats pummeling you, zeroed on you -- due to poor positioning or better positioning with the opponent's behalf, I see no difference in being squished by a powerful volley than being rained by a lot since they'll have the same result.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

There is no such thing as a "well-placed volley" when the computer is the one doing the aiming.

So there it is. Is this just a bout against homing weapons? Or people who can't aim but still get result?

Don't get me wrong, homing missiles do make aiming a little bit easier, but point-click weapons like lasers and ACs just have different set of skills that has to be used than LRMs. Granted streaks and ATMs are different, but we're discussing LRMs for now.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 December 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

Do you plan to take away indirect fire, too? MRMs are big damage and high DPS, but they are direct-fire only with zero guidance. LRMs can't be big damage, big DPS, and have guidance and indirect fire.

Funny. You know if you just reduced CD or damage just to remove the DPS, this thread might as well be another one of those "LRM OP" threads.

I have lots of plans. For one, I really like the idea of TAG-NARC only IDF, but primary LRM users like *redacted* don't like getting their own locks.

I understand that IDF and homing is hard to mix with anything big, I really do. But okay, sure lets take away LRM's DPS role with nothing to replace it. Why would I even pick LRMs that doesn't have good DPS or Alpha?

Do you mean IDF because it has steady stream of damage that you could do anyways? Not unless in wide open spaces, and little vertical cover. It's still far better to use direct-fire weapons, a laser-vomit or dakka build around the corner in something like Mining Colony.

Supposed that we already have the high angle of attack that goes over cover, but low angle of attack that hits faster, what then?

The LRMs may hit faster than it was before, and would work on constricted spaces such as tunnel, but would that be any better than going with a bonafide direct-fire weapon and justify being taken?

If not, then why would we take it over direct-fire weapons if it has weaker impact anyways? Then obviously we take LRM for the IDF feature, but would the IDF feature be good enough? Isn't that what you're actively pursuing against with that weaker tracking strength and reduced DPS?

And if we're taking it for the IDF anyways, why would it be worth being changed to work like a DF when it's not going to be good enough against DF weapons?

If we're not taking on the DPS or Alpha role that is integral on commonly deathmatches, maybe we should just focus on the IDF-Homing role, as in make LRMs fire-and-forget (as in like streaks not needing constant lock). It won't have the DPS or Damage/second, but it would be steady.

I always liked the idea of Fire-and-Forget Homing + Missile-Lock Reacquisition system.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 December 2018 - 11:50 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

holding your mouse over the big red box requires skill

[Dee Eight]

Yeonne Greene, on 15 December 2018 - 11:54 PM, said:

Way to explain yourself, yup.



Says the person throwing a tantrum about people not glomming onto his PoV over LRMs.

So I ask again, how was the last thread devolving? I thought we were having a good exchange.

Was that not the thread where Chris Lowrey said "keep discussing this" ?

[The pessimistic optimist]

The6thMessenger, on 16 December 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

I like the idea, but as it appears to be all on it's own isn't exactly a good change nor have a good impact. PGI (at least Chris) know this too, and it's just obviously mistake on their part.

A lot of adjustment to the rest of the weapons should also be considered, such as giving the ATMs no-minimum-range if LRMs were to undertake the same arc if with LOS, cause ATMs would be devalued as hell. And for the IS side, streaks would be highly devalued against heavier mechs, so there should be a corresponding adjustment to Streaks as well.

I'd also change a few stuffs in the implementation, such as a 25-degree to 45-degree LOS obstruction validation, so that small obstructions such as hills or ridges won't be an issue. And finally, make LRMs faster to land by a considerable margin when fired with LOS. I suppose that would make a refreshing change for making LRMs a bit more direct fire.

Hell no ATM would still do ROLF stupid damage in there sweet spot how has that changed? They would be far from redundant. Also there the ammo issue with LRMs how much ammo should LRM get per bin. I want to lower ammo counts making them less spammy

Edited by SirSmokes, 17 December 2018 - 06:01 AM.

[Vellron2005]

We recently had a "bug" that got fixed, where the LRM trajectories worked better than ever.. if in LOS, they were low like ATMs, and if not in LOS, they were regular LRM trajectories..

That was not a bug, it was a feature! Should have kept it like that..