152 replies to this topic

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

Hazeclaw, on 17 December 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

I love how when people use real world missiles as an argument of how effective LRMs should be, they forget to mention that in real life there's also missile interception systems with over 90% hit rate

In that case AMS should receive a humongous buff.
I'm up for that.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 17 December 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

In that case AMS should receive a humongous buff.
I'm up for that.

Nah its fine the way it is just use it lol.

Edited by SirSmokes, 17 December 2018 - 03:41 PM.

[Jaeger Hunter]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 17 December 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

In that case AMS should receive a humongous buff.
I'm up for that.

An AMS buff, a real buff, would be awesome and greatly appreciated. However, a 12 man of 4 AMS Corsair's is just around the corner so maybe that is their way of saying sorry without admitting it?

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

SirSmokes, on 17 December 2018 - 03:39 PM, said:

Nah its fine the way it is just use it lol.

You.ve played with me a lot, you know almost all my mechs use AMS already.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 17 December 2018 - 03:44 PM, said:

You.ve played with me a lot, you know almost all my mechs use AMS already.

Yea just try and get everyone else too:p Yea AMS need to be a group thing to be the most effective and that works fine.

Edited by SirSmokes, 17 December 2018 - 03:48 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 17 December 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

So you don't like the DPS nature of LRMs? And tell me.. do you mind AC2 spam?

Cose' It's the same thing.. somebody peppers you with annoying little amounts of damage from half a map away, and if you ignore it, it can become deadly.

Yet AC2 spam is somehow ok, and LRM spam, which has 10+ hard counters, is not..

And don't tell me it's cose' with AC2 spam you have to expose yourself.. you do, but when you're 900+ meters away, it isn't all that dangerous is it?

LRMs is one of the few things in this game that makes a difference between a realistic future battlefield and rock em' - sock em' robots..

It's the homing and the indirect part.

AC2 requires a good amount of aim to steadily provide constant damage, not to mention LOS. LRMs, god forbid got narced on Polar, or have a decent spotter, there's little you could do about it.

Vellron2005, on 17 December 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

I'm sorry if some people can't handle the concept of artillery. I'm sure a frontline soldier armed with an M16 also thinks howitzers and tomahawks are OP and need nerfs..

I suggest you try World Robot Boxing for mobile.. maybe it would suit your playstyle better.

Careful. Your high-and-mighty is showing again, and you know what happened the last time you shown that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 December 2018 - 04:06 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

To the guy comparing LRMs and AC2s or any other weapon system based on direct LOS, I have to simply laugh. Even as a newbie, I know how flawed that comparison is. The moment you break LOS or simply move unpredictably, the AC2 slug simply doesn't hit your enemy whereas the LRMs continue to track and more often than not, hit with 100% accuracy.

AC2s actually require you to aim while having LOS. LRMs require you to place your reticle and look at it until it turns red without LOS.

[Grus]

MrSomaru, on 17 December 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

my dual lb20, quad asrm6 scorch would like to say "Hi" and casually trundle past that smoking, wrecked, bracket build abomination.

Not likely, for i stay in the pack and know whats comming. You wont have the armor left

[MW Waldorf Statler]

FRAGTAST1C, on 17 December 2018 - 06:49 PM, said:

To the guy comparing LRMs and AC2s or any other weapon system based on direct LOS, I have to simply laugh. Even as a newbie, I know how flawed that comparison is. The moment you break LOS or simply move unpredictably, the AC2 slug simply doesn't hit your enemy whereas the LRMs continue to track and more often than not, hit with 100% accuracy.

AC2s actually require you to aim while having LOS. LRMs require you to place your reticle and look at it until it turns red without LOS.

With high radar depr. You lost the lock in max. 2 seconds and the lrms only hit the ground or cover ..without radar depri its a little bit longer ...when you in a slow assault in open field alone and without cover its you own fault when you run with a knife to a shooting.to many news playes mwo like a mobil phone facebook game...tunnelview ...nothing tactical awarness ...terrible aiming who drive and hit its a magical thing...not viewing to spotter or uavs above or not firing back by fire and trys to run away and come in panic by the first hits or missle warning...and the biggest fault ...plays alone xand not use R or the minimap .

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 17 December 2018 - 07:28 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 17 December 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

With high radar depr. You lost the lock in max. 2 seconds and the lrms only hit the ground or cover ..without radar depri its a little bit longer ...when you in a slow assault in open field alone and without cover its you own fault when you run with a knife to a shooting.to many news playes mwo like a mobil phone facebook game...tunnelview ...nothing tactical awarness ...terrible aiming who drive and hit its a magical thing...not viewing to spotter or uavs above or not firing back by fire and trys to run away and come in panic by the first hits or missle warning...and the biggest fault ...plays alone xand not use R or the minimap .

I agree with all of that but that is an orthogonal point. When I first started playing MWO, I used the Revenant with LRM 60 (was it?). The first 15 or so matches was all me doing nothing but launch LRMs. I got bored after that and started using them with direct LOS along with my MPLs. I get it that people have different tastes when it comes to fun but at least using Tag + Direct LOS + Artemis would make your missiles even better. Isn't that worth dying for?

[Phoenix 72]

Jaeger Hunter, on 17 December 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:

An AMS buff, a real buff, would be awesome and greatly appreciated. However, a 12 man of 4 AMS Corsair's is just around the corner so maybe that is their way of saying sorry without admitting it?

Agreed. Actually, it would not even have to be a buff to AMS, it would already be enough to actually implement rewards for missiles shot down. As in cash. Maybe even a nice title. I belong to the people that - after lurmaggeddon hit in the summer - has not had any problems with missiles since. I still field AMS on the majority of my Mechs, for team mates. If there was some form of reward for it, you can bet more people would bring AMS, even at the current efficiency.

As far as the 48 AMS Corsair team goes, I wonder whether that would be overkill... But then, I do not play faction, so it's just speculation.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The best for LRM is playing agressive in and with team and tag in ranges sub 600m ...all other is most noob terraforming and to the end 2 LRM assaults without ammo and backup weapons and 100% amor stands alone against the red team ...while the lrm damage only spread over the enwmy team without heavy damahe or bring a red to fall .

[FRAGTAST1C]

Over the comms, I keep telling my team to wait and be patient until the enemies start to get their armour shred and then move in. LRMs are good for this. But the problem, as stated multiple times in this thread, is assault LRM carriers who sit 1km away and shoot at buildings. If we can change that, it'd be great for starters.

[Kroete]

FRAGTAST1C, on 18 December 2018 - 12:02 AM, said:

Over the comms, I keep telling my team to wait and be patient until the enemies start to get their armour shred and then move in. LRMs are good for this. But the problem, as stated multiple times in this thread, is assault LRM carriers who sit 1km away and shoot at buildings. If we can change that, it'd be great for starters.

Less spamabilitys, like less ammo and a little more heat,
better los options like faster locks, less spread and better arc to control the flightpath a little more.
You know,like we had some patches ago ...

Then the people moaned and got what they wanted (or what pgi though they wanted?):
More ammo and less heat for more spam and nerfed los artemis and arc.

The spirits you called ...

Edited by Kroete, 18 December 2018 - 05:38 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Kroete, on 18 December 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

Less spamabilitys, like less ammo and a little more heat,
better los options like faster locks, less spread and better arc to control the flightpath a little more.
You know,like we had some patches ago ...

Then the people moaned and got what they wanted (or what pgi though they wanted?):
More ammo and less heat for more spam and nerfed los artemis and arc.

The spirits you called ...

Ammo is a big problem people can stuff so many damn missiles in to there mechs they can spam LRM all day. Lower ammo counts so people have to start thinking do I really want to waste my missiles on this guy I might not hit.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

what the heck is all the talk about debuffing lurms?

they buffed them three times in a row, with some minor setbacks to the targeting reticule later.
they did that on purpose.

you and me may not like it, but they surely aren't going the opposite way, now.



what I'd _really_ like to see -and this is only half-sarcastic- would be an "out of bounds" countdown between the mech closest to the enemy and the lurmer. if the lurmer is, say, 500mtrs behind, the clock begins to run....
I can dream, right?

[The pessimistic optimist]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 18 December 2018 - 06:25 AM, said:

what the heck is all the talk about debuffing lurms?

they buffed them three times in a row, with some minor setbacks to the targeting reticule later.
they did that on purpose.

you and me may not like it, but they surely aren't going the opposite way, now.



what I'd _really_ like to see -and this is only half-sarcastic- would be an "out of bounds" countdown between the mech closest to the enemy and the lurmer. if the lurmer is, say, 500mtrs behind, the clock begins to run....
I can dream, right?

Lower the ammo count! Its the easiest way to lower LRM damage and force people to sacrifice more on there builds to bring loads of ammo. No programing needed thing is how much do you cut. A lot of LRM fire goes in to nothing make those missed hits hurt more.

Edited by SirSmokes, 18 December 2018 - 07:03 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

SirSmokes, on 18 December 2018 - 06:59 AM, said:

Lower the ammo count! Its the easiest way to lower LRM damage and force people to sacrifice more on there builds to bring loads of ammo. No programing needed thing is how much do you cut. A lot of LRM fire goes in to nothing make those missed hits hurt more.

read. again

they upped the ammo per bin a few patches ago (also the speed and downed the heat). with intent.
they ain't gonna roll that back into the opposite direction.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 18 December 2018 - 07:13 AM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 18 December 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

read. again

they upped the ammo per bin a few patches ago (also the speed and downed the heat). with intent.
they ain't gonna roll that back into the opposite direction.

Did some people really request the increase in ammo for LRM and the rest of the community just let that happen?

[Daurock]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, on 18 December 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

read. again

they upped the ammo per bin a few patches ago (also the speed and downed the heat). with intent.
they ain't gonna roll that back into the opposite direction.

This is true. They've specifically buffed LRMs several times in a row now, despite lots of negative feedback from doing it. If they didn't have some specific reason for doing so, (such as LRMs being under-performing) they wouldn't have buffed them in the first place. People would do well to remember that the devs want people to be able to use LRMs, and that they want them to be effective while using them.

Trying to convince the devs to blanket nerf LRMS using an argument similar to "LRMs should be less effective because they require less skill" or "LRMs should be less effective because LRM users stand in back and fire without risk" is likely to fall on deaf ears, as they're not new arguments and have been around long before the recent LRM buffs. If they were listening to them, they wouldn't have buffed LRMS in the first place.

That being said, are there further improvements to be made? Yes, IMO. With the recent buffs Indirect fire has been made a little too strong in my opinion, while Direct fire is still not strong enough when used against competent opponents. One way to help with this would be to put more focus on Lock-Times, and less focus on the long travel times that LRMS have regardless of how they're fired. Making LRMS travel dramatically faster, but nerfing Lock times when used indirectly would move them in a better direction. Further buffing LOS lock times would also help with this. One may have to re-evaluate Tag and NARC, if those types of changes go through, but that's really a secondary issue.