323 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

HenryFA, on 14 January 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

Your teammate can do that as well, sooo...

Anyway, cover and timing always matters if you want to charge a LRM boat.
Under 180m they are still useless.

[Armored Yokai]

I remember when you could score headshots with lrms.

[HammerMaster]

Armored Yokai, on 14 January 2019 - 07:47 PM, said:

I remember when you could score headshots with lrms.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 January 2019 - 07:53 PM.

[Jonathan8883]

Are we also going to see some help fixing the 60-65% lock-on-cone nerf? I've pretty much stopped using lock on missiles since that was dropped with no testing.

[AccessTime]

What they really need to do is this -- once lock is achieved, ignore the vertical component for purposes of losing lock. That way, you can angle the targeting reticle up at varying degrees slightly before firing if you want indirect fire, or maintain angle directly toward the target for direct fire. Because there are still times you want indirect fire even if you have direct LOS, for instance a fast mech that will be able to get behind cover in time, or minimizing the possibility of hitting friendlies that are in the way (or may step in the way).

[BrunoSSace]

These changes seem good. But what are the purpose of tag and narc now?

Allow them to buff indirect and direct fire. Give big xp and credit bonuses to the user of these items. Increase lock time make the target easier to hit.

[Anomalocaris]

Feels like a net nerf to LRMs. I don't play them anymore save for special event goals, etc., but I certainly don't feel like LRMs are OP now (even on LRM friendly maps, it isn't hard to break locks, just make sure UAVs get shot down).

The new mechanic is interesting though. I like interesting, but I'm not sure that changing LRM mechanics in such a way that self-identified LRM fans don't want is good for the game.

That said, while I'll try the PTS, I really don't expect useful data. As someone else pointed out, 4v4 doesn't favor LRM play regardless of map/mode. And there are always people playing direct counters just so they can go troll other players attempting to actually test the changes on the PTS. I fully expect lots of short range focused ECM mechs to be around killing LRM testers.

[ShooteyMcShooterson]

I don't run LRMs much, but I have no complaints about a modification that will reward my existing play style when I do run LRMs.

Oh and I agree with others pointing out that the PTS is unlikely to yield good LRM stats, unless the PTS parameters are tweaked. Maybe make the PTS 8v8 and run some sort of LRM event within it that rewards in-game.

[DAEDALOS513]

I don't need to play the test server to know that as it stands, I see this change as a net buff, regardless of those miniscule negative quirks that come with firing indirectly. The nerfs are not severe enough. Most players using lrms are just looking to score easy damage with the least amount of effort necessary.. they don't care that damage is spread from head to toe, or if they have to wait an extra second or two to cool off.. they'll still be able to score those little-effort, high damage numbers that make them feel like they are elite. Besides all that, who needs the line of sight quirks when narc is what trully makes lrms devastating and far outweighs the benefits of trying the more risky direct-firing of lurms...especially in invasion mode. LRM's without narc, annoying, but not scary in the least.

I'm against this change whole-heartedly.. as cougurt consicely stated above, direct fire lurms are too similar to ATM's and the change will only dilute their uniqueness. It would also be treading into the ground of mrm’a and even streaks...

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 January 2019 - 04:59 AM.

[The Might Mun]

If this feels similar to the patch they accidently released to live for a short time, it's going to feel ******

The missiles firing in such a shallow arc means so many missiles slam into low cover/hills that would have been avoided when firing out of line of sight.

During that patch I found myself actively trying to avoid LoS so my missiles would consistently actually hit the target past cover

Unless the spread/speed buff is really large, LRMs are going to feel worse in many direct fire cases

[Reposter]

With the changes to Artemis I think this is a step in the right direction. I do know exactly how it would work out yet, but does this mean that Normal LRMs are getting a buff more than Artemis Missile Launchers?

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Thing is I kind of never die to LRMs to begin with.

The only exception is when I'm narced on a rare enough LRM friendly map like Polar Highlands, and even then that's more of a Narc problem then a LRM problem.

But maybe LRMs are a problem in QP : There's no shortage of players ordering you not to bring a single LRM to Faction Play, and FP is all about getting your front center torso cored in one alpha strike by instant firing pinpoint damage weapons.

But I welcome the focus on LRMs : Looks harmless

[50 50]

D V Devnull, on 14 January 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

in particular note, these Lowered Trajectories will cause people to accidentally hit Teammates in the backs repeatedly

Unless said friendly is within the minimum range. I've always thought of the minimum range being a 'safe arming distance' like a torpedo.

D V Devnull, on 14 January 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

there will no longer be any ability to pitch over Teammates in Direct-Fire Situations against an Enemy Mech

Unless the team mates do cause loss of LOS and the weapon reverts to indirect fire.

D V Devnull, on 14 January 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

Streak SRMs up higher needed more focus and help, because they're already down this hole in terms of Tracking/Locking, particularly in terms of being unable to Lock-On when the Enemy Mech is literally right in your face.

Should LRMs have a lock on at all?
Seems like that function should be something specific to the streak weapon systems so it can then be used for streak lrms,
If LRMs only had a direct fire option, is there room to add in a second lot of LRM weapon systems that are specifically indirect fire and have a unique targetting system?

[mad kat]

Buffing lrms?????

What the actual **** is wrong with you PGI?

You already buffed them recently, it's already lurmageddon and it seems like there's a lot of new players out there just boating lrms.

And why nerf Artemis into oblivion to then buff the base weapon!!!

And you want to make them stronger??.

It's this just a desperate plea to keep hold of the new players that are realising pretty damn fast how bad the game is?

Edited by mad kat, 14 January 2019 - 10:54 PM.

[50 50]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

... free C3 lockon people would not be getting out of LOS locks in the first place ....

Remember when there was the push for a more elaborate information warfare system with the information sharing ranges and a few other things?
That's slipped under the radar now.....

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Dee Eight, on 14 January 2019 - 06:53 PM, said:

https://www.khanacad...r-circumference

I suspect someone at PGI thought the area of the lock circle was calculated as Pi times the diameter... which is actually the formula for how you calculate the circumference of a circle. Thus they assumed divide the diameter in half makes the circle half the size...

They always said that the base angle was reduced, not the circle (ofc this was reduced in consequence), iirc

[Vellron2005]

So, after reading a great part of this thread, it's going just as you would expect..

People who predominantly don't play LRMs (and are often the ones who promote LRM hate") are saying "nerf the LRMs, nerf them to hell, good job PGI"

People who actually predominantly play LRM are saying "lower the arc a bit when in direct fire, but no nerfs please".

I hope PGI listens to those who actually play LRMs, and not the vocal comp & DF oriented minority.

Also, please take into consideration that the original idea was to make LRMs easier to use on maps like Rubellite, HPG and Solaris.. not to nerf them into being useless in IDF..

[NocturnalBeast]

How many times do LRMs need to be rebalanced? Haven't we already come full circle with LRMS being OP, and then useless and then OP and now mostly just for padding DPS?

[Antares102]

Axys Rageborn, on 14 January 2019 - 04:35 PM, said:

This nonesense aboit shooting team mates in the back is just cop out. This is something every other weapon system has to take into account so if you are positioning yourself to get good firing lines non of this bs matters.

You sir are talking nonsense because every other weapon system has MUCH higher or even instantaneous projectile speed, meaning that if you are 500 away and you see an opening between your team mates you can fire through with little chance of doing friendly fire. If somebody still steps into your fireling line due to e.g. long laser burn duration you can still control your beams and move them away.

With a projectile velocity of 175m/s the situation at the front may have changed three seconds later in terms of friendly mech positions and unlike with lasers you are no longer in control of your weapon system (=fire and forget missiles).

[Deathshade]

I have been blind firing LRMs for decades. It is only logical to have this behavior as blind firing was kind of clunky as it stands currently. This dynamic will allow for greater use of missles in brawls and while mechs at range hide under ecm. Once you hit the targets, ecm is countered and you can lock. LRM should be more dynamic.

It is good move now remove the charge mechanics for gauss and give ppc's use again to watch all the players come back.