323 replies to this topic

[Kamikaze Viking]

As we saw in the Accidental release of this, there was a problem with LOS where the arc was too low on launch and hitting into friendly mechs backs if you are tightly grouped up. Even hitting low terrain or buildings if you were close to them due to the position of the Launcher hardpoints.

I would like to suggest an arc such as this to be a compromise between the 2.

[HammerMaster]

Antares102, on 14 January 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

Something that nobody has brought up yet from what I can see is that with all those LRM boats that have increased in numberes over the last month with this change there will be a large increase in friendly fire as well.

Lower arc means more backs will be hit if a LRM boat is fireing into the battle because the friendlies may get into the way between having clear LOS and the missiles actually reaching the target.

And this is something nobody will notice on PTS because of low numbers of friendlies.

Hopefully we'll see less boats and more mix builds.
Let the new learning curve take effect.
Just don't assume we'll see droves of dead back shot friendlies.

[Chados]

Direct fire buff is useful. Indirect fire spread nerf and heat nerf, not so much. Essentially, you have ATMs with less hit power here. A global IS nerf.

[Admiral Ackbar 86]

PGI, I really love the changes, thanks for finally listening to the community as a whole.

[Kroete]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Hopefully we'll see less boats and more mix builds.
Let the new learning curve take effect.
Just don't assume we'll see droves of dead back shot friendlies.

We will just see more players staying back with lrms after they find they will hit more terrain or teammates with direct locks or get nearly cored by two alphas during trying to get a lock and fire a salvo.

You want to buff direct fire lrms? Reduce the locktime
You want to buff skill? Give bending back
You want less spam? Reduce ammo.
Or just revert the last patches where they buffed indirect massspamming and nerfed the direct options,
it will be a better startingpoint to try new mechanics.

Edited by Kroete, 14 January 2019 - 03:44 PM.

[dwwolf]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Hopefully we'll see less boats and more mix builds.
Let the new learning curve take effect.
Just don't assume we'll see droves of dead back shot friendlies.

How ?
There is even less incentive NOT to boat LRMs if they apply dmg better in direct fire mode.
LRM DPS is VERY high /launcher/ tonnage and /heat.

Gun type weapons still will be more efficient since you can actually AIM at locations, but guided LRM dmg will get better in direct fire mode . Encroaching on ATM territory. IMHO.

[Tibbnak]

I'm a big fan of the depictions, though I'd go even farther and only make the indirect fire work if the target is narc'd or tagged. Really, solo indirect lrms have been a massive source of misery in this game.

[MechWpnsTech]

nerf, nerf, that all these sessions do....fubar things up to make the complainers happy......

4x4 matches still suck and are bs when in conquest mode, you can not hold a team together and cover each resource with one mech each.......lets see all the big winners from the last major competition do it, includeing all the devs/mods.

you want to increase lrms heat, then increase heat sinks capacity to compensate for it.
while lrm trajectory does need adjustment, leave the rest of their stats as they are.....

if you nerf lrms now badly, it will just make people use more srms ,atms,mrms instead......to make things fair...increase the heat to all missile systems.

[HammerMaster]

Kroete, on 14 January 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

We will just see more players staying back with lrms after they find they will hit more terrain or teammates with direct locks or get nearly cored by two alphas during trying to get a lock and fire a salvo.

You want to buff direct fire lrms? Reduce the locktime
You want to buff skill? Give bending back
You want less spam? Reduce ammo.
Or just revert the last patches where they buffed indirect massspamming and nerfed the direct options,
it will be a better startingpoint to try new mechanics.

If people still hanve back after a the change drops and you try to teach and they still hang back.
Well it's on them. They didn't learn.
Question is. Will you?

dwwolf, on 14 January 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

How ?
There is even less incentive NOT to boat LRMs if they apply dmg better in direct fire mode.
LRM DPS is VERY high /launcher/ tonnage and /heat.

Gun type weapons still will be more efficient since you can actually AIM at locations, but guided
LRM dmg will get better in direct fire mode . Encroaching on ATM territory. IMHO.

We shall see.
Also see above.
IS doesn't have ATM.
As long as the out of LOS spread penalty is proper. We'll see a behavior change.
If not. Those people were unteachable anyway.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 January 2019 - 04:03 PM.

[Nightbird]

This will probably turn into a quad nerf.

1. spread nerf on indirect fire
2. speed nerf
3. obstacles get in the way on direct fire, which could be avoided with a higher arc
4. GH nerf

Edited by Nightbird, 14 January 2019 - 04:02 PM.

[Shanrak]

C337Skymaster, on 14 January 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

https://youtu.be/_x_qTW507II
Shanrak, I have a little experiment for you: I want you to take a 'mech, any 'mech, that comes stock as a LRM boat (Stormcrow-D, Nova Cat-B, or Catapult A1 or C1 come to mind), and try to make those 'mechs work, stock. I want you to play 10 matches and average out your damage scores. It sounds to me like you're the victim of LRMs much more often than the perpetrator of them, and need a taste of the other side.

I've played LRMs before in organized groups with dedicated Narcer, its boring as hell, just sit there and shoot until things dies. I do not find it fun at all. I also have no problems when I'm the target as I know how to hide, and ignore/roll the damage when necessary, but I have seen first hand the effect of mass lurms does to teams who were trying to push, it grinds things to a halt and then it turns into a game where the lurmers on each side is screaming for locks while everyone else peeks occasionally. Also, nothing is more annoying than when you are in a nice trading fight with another player and a useless lrm5 spammer starts slapping you in the face with chained volleys. Not enough damage to matter, just enough splat to be annoying. When lurms gets real bad during events, I find it way more enjoyable to bring a triple/quad AMS mech.

MechWpnsTech, on 14 January 2019 - 03:55 PM, said:

if you nerf lrms now badly, it will just make people use more srms ,atms,mrms instead......

I see nothing wrong with that

I would love it if clan had MRMs.

[HammerMaster]

Shanrak, on 14 January 2019 - 04:02 PM, said:

I would love it if clan had MRMs.

Are you serious!?
Clan has ATM!

[MovinTarget]

Actually, if you want to nerf indirect, MAKE THEM SHOOT STRAIGHT FORWARD or some very slight angle. If you'r hiding, they are useless.

If you are have LOS, (save for friendlies in front) have them arc a bit more.

[HammerMaster]

MovinTarget, on 14 January 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

Actually, if you want to nerf indirect, MAKE THEM SHOOT STRAIGHT FORWARD or some very slight angle. If you'r hiding, they are useless.

If you are have LOS, (save for friendlies in front) have them arc a bit more.

Sorry?
Are you confused?

[Axys Rageborn]

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.

Geez sorry you will have to play better and use better positioning to do damage. What a shame.

Btw running mrm + lrm combos are gonna be fun as hell and be pretty funny to see ams struggle with all the missiles

Edit- also wouldn't a team mate that steps in front of you block your LoS so then the missiles should behave like idf.

Edited by Axys Rageborn, 14 January 2019 - 04:53 PM.

[MovinTarget]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 04:31 PM, said:

Sorry?
Are you confused?

No I'm not, if you want to punish people for hiding, don't give them much angle at all, their missiles will just hit the building in front of them.

[HammerMaster]

MovinTarget, on 14 January 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

No I'm not, if you want to punish people for hiding, don't give them much angle at all, their missiles will just hit the building in front of them.

Sir.
You are aware there is a speed and spread (and ghost heat) nerf correct?
Nerfing indirect by angle makes it not indirect then moot?

[The6thMessenger]

Now could we get Lock-Time buff with LOS?

[Sereglach]

Chris Lowrey, on 14 January 2019 - 12:04 PM, said:

Flamers are on my list as noted in the October patch notes. Since their design was primarily tuned to the old heat system and not the one we currently have.

But as mentioned at 'Mech_Con, this has been in the works for a bit and as such is farther along. Still working on flamers on my end, but at this time, no timetable beyond that we acknowledge it is a "known issue" with the recent changes to the heat system.

While this is not the place for a Flamer discussion, (Let's try to keep it focused on the matter at hand,) we are still monitoring opinions on what people would like to see out of the Flamer considering the recent updates to the heat system.

Good to know. Thank you, sincerely, for the response. You know my stance on Flamers (and if not then there's only a couple of hundred posts where I mention it), so there's that for future reference. You know me, I can't really pass an opportunity to make a plug for my favorite weapon in Battletech.

While keeping it on LRMs, as I said, I look forward to the PTS, because these chances look promising for a first pass. Even if more tweaks are needed down the road, it seems like a great baseline.

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

*snip*

Patience. I've been waiting 6 years for my baby, the Flamer, to get fixed, and core mechanic changes are only recently creating that opportunity. I know this isn't about Flamers, but hear me out here. You need to wait for the baseline mechanical changes to take place before PGI can move forward with any other LRM changes. IF these LRM changes are successful, and they're able to create a greatly improved LRM baseline experience, THEN they can POSSIBLY begin to look at things like returning some of the old lock-on radius.

Granted, that might only be for LOS locks, or maybe it's something they can attach to Artemis (not likely, since Artemis locking mechanics are wonky and link to ALL launchers), but they need to create a good baseline, first. They need this baseline to bounce any future changes off of. Having LRMs behave differently (read: better) between LOS and Indirect is something that's been a pressing issue for AGES. This is a major fundamental mechanic change, not unlike the heat scale. Once they have the fundamental change in place, then they can start looking at other changes, and then they can see how it will effect the various mechanics, across the board. Only at that point will they be able to make more informed decisions on what they can and should do going forward.

If you try these changes on the PTS and think there's room to return lock-on angle for something like LOS locks, then voice your opinion and give your reasoning for said opinion.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 January 2019 - 05:03 PM.

[MovinTarget]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 04:43 PM, said:

Sir.
You are aware there is a speed and spread (and ghost heat) nerf correct?
Nerfing indirect by angle makes it not indirect then moot?

See? That's not so hard to understand!