323 replies to this topic

[ExoForce]

7up
yours
sincerely

Edited by ExoForce, 15 January 2019 - 01:57 PM.

[JC Daxion]

While i really like the whole concept, the Direct fire model has too strait of an arc.. It should go up a little at first then bee-line towards the target..


The whole reason to use LRM's over SRM's or MRM's in a Long-Brawl mech, is so you can fire over the front line mechs. If these missiles are basically flying like MRM's this is not going to work at all. they will basically turn into atm's which totally suck as a second line weapon.


Your direct firing arc needs a little tweaking, otherwise i like the concept

[dwwolf]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

Excuse me sir... But you're wrong.

LRM DPS is near 20.0 for a lot of mechs, basically the highest in the game. You can output 640dmg in 30s in the right conditions, which for a indirect weapon, come up far more often than direct fire.

Who cares if the damage is spread and they get low kills? (which is untrue). Damage is damage. If you can strip 30% of your opponents armour before the fight really starts when your team is quite capable of finishing them off because you are already at an advantage.

Thus LRM DPS needs to be nerfed, thats the core issue with it. This PTS, doesn't address that realistically.

Something a lot of people simply don't understand.

Right, nerf LRM into the ground because sandblasting is soo0 effective which also explains LBX AC popularity I guess

I think you are an unique case complaining about LRM DPS, because most people realise that LRMs raw "DPS" means nothing if it isnt concentrated or slammed into the ground by the large spread. Nor is it close to sustainable because that LRM90 salvo = 50 heat.

Feel free to troll onwards but I'll be ignoring you from now on.

Edited by dwwolf, 15 January 2019 - 02:18 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

They aren't being nerfed into the ground though?

LRMs took 3 or 4 individual buffs in the first half of 2018. They did not need most of them as they were in a reasonably well balanced place. Some tweaks yes, but not the HUGE boosters they received.

So fast forward 9 months and now we're now seeing backpeddaling on LRMs to bring them back into line. Even NARC was touched in an effort to hit LRMs but that hasn't worked either.

If you think I am trolling as a player at the top level of the game - I don't think you really understand or comprehend the issues here.

You should go and watch the most recent NGNG podcast, it goes into plenty of detail about it.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 15 January 2019 - 02:35 PM.

[dwwolf]

No, indeed they are not its only more Heat, more Spread, and a Trajectory change that will negate the only benefit of using LRMs, but other than that they will be fine.

I still haven't seen an articulated reasoning of the the Vision/Role that PGI sees for LRMs and why the mechanics need to change at all.
LRM use has already died off to again and its back to DF meta. Mid year changes made sure of that.

[justcallme A S H]

It's not more heat. It is more heat penalty. There is a difference and it really does seem like you don't understand it.

Heat Penalty is when you fire over the weapons levels of ghost heat for "X" amount of launchers.

Right now you can drop 4 x cLRM20 alpha's for 30s straight. That should not be possible. So now the penalty for dropping 4 x LRM20s now gives a bigger ghost heat spike, which absolutely needed to happen. There is no way anyone can sit here and say the ghost heat level for a 80 alpha was OK.

[DrunkenJesus]

I Personally Like the Idea of the different Firing Arcs, but I don't really Like the slower speed of the Missiles. But I will Join into the PTS and see how things go down there.

But I also am Thinking about a different approach. It might be a Pain in the *** to use it in the game, but I think it could be fun. In Lore we have different Manufacturers of LRM-Systems. So why don't we implement more different versions of the Launcher?

It could look like this:
Launcher A does the high arc for indirect fire.
Launcher B does the low arc for direct fire.
Launcher C does the swirly rockets, wich are better against AMS but slower in velocity.
Launcher D allows for Dumb-Firing the Rockets, but at inceased Heat.
Launcher E gets really High-Speed Missiles, but with a terrible spread.

[KrocodockleTheBooBoxLoader-GetIn]

This game has needed LRM changes for years... YESSSSSSSS

[HammerMaster]

Ya. Lets our "top" guys keep downing this PTS(its not in stone yet) before the rest of the community gets a week to try it.
If anyone actually gets on PTS.

Edited by HammerMaster, 15 January 2019 - 04:12 PM.

[Enduar]

Metalgod69, on 15 January 2019 - 08:29 AM, said:

You want brilliant stats and your skills are only good enough for, ähm, breathing in real life ? Go take a super nova a full with lrms. Drop with a good narcer and you get 4-?? kills and 1000-???? dmg.

And best: you dont need to do much, press the mighty fire button, and watch the lrms fly. Its so exciting ....
Another "bonus": you dont need to share your armor. Its a good way to make new friends, they will appreciate it.
And best of all: you will never have to worry about things like aiming and torso twisting. Honestly, twisting and aiming was overrated anyways.

Warning - guys with basic skills at least, might be bored, when using lrms. But even those guys can ejacul., when they watch their well and skillfully deserved stats.

And yes, i really, really .... reeeally hate lrms. Just throw this none fun weapon out of the game. And give IS ATMs for it.

BTW: i dont care about stats, and qp is a better testing ground, for me. (reg. jarls list)

Good strategy is a skill. Seems you lack it, and would rather complain and call for the removal of strategy you do not understand.

[DAEDALOS513]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

Heat I cannot fathom , Burst volleys are needed to function vs AMS at the cost of plenty heat already, Chain fire = lower DPS and AMS vulnerability. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. LRMs are already subpar at killing mechs.

Like Ash said above, who cares if they are subpar at killing, the dps is off the charts and the dmg lrm's inflict leave a mech vulnerable to death from one of your teamates.. can you say KMDD's?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 January 2019 - 04:28 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

HammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

Ya. Lets our "top" guys keep downing this PTS(its not in stone yet) before the rest of the community gets a week to try it.
If anyone actually gets on PTS.

Downing?

I was giving feedback - there is a distinct difference.

End of the day top players understand the game to the tiny details, in most cases. We play the game regularly and spend many hours doing science and testing. Thus we and can, just from a on-paper suggestion, work out roughly how things will play out.

It's happened with every PTS and value change in patch notes. We can literally predict what will/wont happen with very good accuracy.

We aren't sitting here saying we need "more LORE" when we don't even understand the LORE, like you.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 15 January 2019 - 04:31 PM.

[Nairdowell]

Since I only run LRMs in close support mode (LRMs with TAG) around the 400m range once the sides start to close, I'm looking forward to seeing the impact with direct fire bonuses.... let it rain.....

[HammerMaster]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2019 - 04:31 PM, said:

Downing?

I was giving feedback - there is a distinct difference.

End of the day top players understand the game to the tiny details, in most cases. We play the game regularly and spend many hours doing science and testing. Thus we and can, just from a on-paper suggestion, work out roughly how things will play out.

It's happened with every PTS and value change in patch notes. We can literally predict what will/wont happen with very good accuracy.

We aren't sitting here saying we need "more LORE" when we don't even understand the LORE, like you.

Per the video when asked about LRM.
1st. You laughed. How do you really feel?
2nd. You said roll back the last 3 buffs correct?
Then nothing else.
After the PTS if you have input I'll give it the time of day.
You now? Yeah no.

Edited by HammerMaster, 15 January 2019 - 04:53 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Seems you are not reading my posts.

I'd suggest you go and try that, before, trying to call me out. I put forward what should be done/tested.

[HammerMaster]

justcallme A S H, on 15 January 2019 - 04:58 PM, said:

Seems you are not reading my posts.

I'd suggest you go and try that, before, trying to call me out. I put forward what should be done/tested.

Well sir. Hopefully I'll see you on the PTS then.

[dario03]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 02:17 PM, said:

Right, nerf LRM into the ground because sandblasting is soo0 effective which also explains LBX AC popularity I guess

I think you are an unique case complaining about LRM DPS, because most people realise that LRMs raw "DPS" means nothing if it isnt concentrated or slammed into the ground by the large spread. Nor is it close to sustainable because that LRM90 salvo = 50 heat.

Feel free to troll onwards but I'll be ignoring you from now on.

4xlb10 is fairly popular and very good on mechs like Fafnir and Slepnir.

[Robert Bruce]

there is a saying that comes to mind here.

if it aint broke? dont fix it.

unpopular opinion inbound:
if PGI could stop pandering to a small group of manipulative complainers who claim to be the silent majority?

that'd be good.

[HammerMaster]

Robert Bruce, on 15 January 2019 - 07:16 PM, said:

there is a saying that comes to mind here.

if it aint broke? dont fix it.

unpopular opinion inbound:
if PGI could stop pandering to a small group of manipulative complainers who claim to be the silent majority?

that'd be good.

You sure about that?

[IllCaesar]

As a player who has a decent amount of LRM mechs and just bought a Tempest - I'm looking forward to the new changes! While direct line-of-sight has been the best way to use LRMs because you don't need to rely on others for your locks I've felt that the actual missile behaviour from having direct LOS vs indirect LOS was far too weak. Tightening groups and speeding them up like this is going to make them quite lethal when caught out in the open but the rest of the changes are for the better so that mindless plinking has fewer returns. My only complaint is that with the direct LOS that having such a lower trajectory may mean that some missiles hit cover an enemy is behind even when you have LOS on them. You know, when they're just tall enough to be TAGged but you couldn't really get a decent shot in with any ballistics.