323 replies to this topic

[IronEleven]

The amount of salt from LRM boats in this thread who can't stand the thought of getting their own locks is hilarious.

[Tarl Cabot]

Once this is out of the way, what about looking at isXL surviving loss of 1st ST and changing up the penalty attributes for the LFE and cXL?

example

• LFE 15% movement penalty - 15% or 20% engine heat dissipation penalty (20% - 2 out of 10 engine slots but denser -lesser weight savings)
  
• cXL 20% movement penalty - 30% engine heat dissipation penalty (20% - 2 out of 10 engine slots - base line)
  
• isXL 30% movement penalty - 40% or 45% engine heat dissipation penalty (25% - 3 out of 12 engine slots)

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Spread was nerfed once already no need for another.
No such thing as solo indirect fire.
DF angle looks interesting.
Will heat drastically affect chainfire?
Not all lrm players hang in the back, I see just as many laser, ppc, gauss and autocannon hiding in the back.
Those lrm players that do hang in back have not learned it reduces targets and increases time to target.

[Spheroid]

This seems like an admission that all of the LRM buffs of 2018 were in error (which they were).

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Just had a concern
Let's say I am running an lrm boat, I have picked a nice spot clear of my fellow teammates but one of them does decide to walk in front of me while I am DF shooting, he gets cored and dies.
Who gets banned?
Good PTS scenario to try out, as long as I don't get banned testing it.

Edited by Bwah Ha Ha, 14 January 2019 - 05:55 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Bwah Ha Ha, on 14 January 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just had a concern
Let's say I am running an lrm boat, I have picked a nice spot clear of my fellow teammates but one of them does decide to walk in front of me while I am DF shooting, he gets cored and dies.
Who gets banned?

I wouldn't say ALL.

Bwah Ha Ha, on 14 January 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just had a concern
Let's say I am running an lrm boat, I have picked a nice spot clear of my fellow teammates but one of them does decide to walk in front of me while I am DF shooting, he gets cored and dies.
Who gets banned?

No worse than same situation with dual HGR. Why problem?

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Well I know currently I can adjust the to the angle of my launch, now in DF my angle changes. I know it can happen with any weapon but with a NG or NC lrm boat that's 80 to 90 missiles.

[K19]

This is so easy to fix that seems like a bad joke.

1º You really know how all missile types work in your game. right.
2º Use real-life rules. You can make it work. see the target, make lock and then fire. if the normal fore lock should be 100% damage, but if you have ams. But if lock has more "jokes" skills CPUs, quirks. The damage goes up.
3º You know you do not need a lock to shoot right? if the curve is changed it will be easier to shoot.
4º Lock vs ground. I liked to see more work.

[Dee Eight]

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...

[GweNTLeR]

@PGI
I like the nerfs, but even I will say that that it is probably too much. And you are forgetting another issue - It is not the lurmers who win the games, it is NARCERS. I think you should consider decreasing its duration dramatically (also decreasing special quirks that increase duration) but also reducing cooldown dramatically. It would probably require some changes to narc skills in skill tree, but hey, that needs to be done.
I also believe that it is necessary to Nerf Target decay skill and velocity skill (specifically for lurms), possibly rework sensors skill tree to give easier access to Deprevation nodes;
And, a pie in the sky: make LRMs skill dependant. How? For example, make their spread dependant on how good you were holding your lock during their flight, like starting with small and increasing if you were holding it bad. Not really transparent mechanic, but it should make them more like RACs.

[Enduar]

Basically the same old business. Meta players who only know or care about direct fire and "sharing armor" dictating nerfs to MWO's only indirect fire weapon so that it doesn't function well in the role it's supposed to fulfill and instead forces it into one it cannot sustain itself in, while ignoring that the weapon system is one of the only in the game with hard counters that can outright deny their ability to lock and deal damage. This kind of whining is around in pretty much every mindless F2P game that includes indirect fire in any capacity, and it always boils down to people not wanting to do any thinking beyond grinding their face into the enemy team as one big mob.

Allowing functional changes in trajectory and velocity, allowing player choice in these, is not necessarily a bad thing- but I do not see PGI putting in the due diligence to make these changes benefit LRM pilots in any meaningful way and judging by what I'm seeing here it's basically just being used to force players into exposing themselves, ultimately because the vast majority of players refuse to mount AMS, pilot ECM mechs, or properly utilize maps in a way that won't predictably place them in the open (IE: Alright everyone, lets run to the middle of the map and brawl like every single other match we've ever played). Does the new trajectory detect friendly pilots, or is this going to mean you have to stand line-abreast to avoid dealing with friendly fire?

I would be much happier if these changes were neutral to the existing LRM gameplay rather than a drastic nerf. If PPC heat was increased by 1/4th to 1/3rd across the board with the accompanying velocity people would be rioting. This is less about people being angry about "unfair mechanics" and altering LRMs accordingly, and more about people still being unwilling to use existing hard counters that are freely available for almost all mechs.

So while we're on the topic of nerfs to indirect fire and force multipliers, why don't we go the opposite direction and talk about why PGI still hasn't implemented the year 3012's Long Tom Cannon? Oh, sorry- I guess that would also interrupt everyone's favorite senseless meta of running around in a giant disorganized blob of pinpoint damage weapons and one-shotting mechs one at a time. That's more "fun" and "interesting" than getting rained to death by LRMs because you refused to mount AMS, ECM, Target Deprivation, utilize any cover, or mounted such a small engine that you couldn't move to safety.

Edited by Enduar, 14 January 2019 - 07:08 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Enduar, on 14 January 2019 - 07:07 PM, said:

Basically the same old business. Meta players who only know or care about direct fire and "sharing armor" dictating nerfs to MWO's only indirect fire weapon so that it doesn't function well in the role it's supposed to fulfill and instead forces it into one it cannot sustain itself in, while ignoring that the weapon system is one of the only in the game with hard counters that can outright deny their ability to lock and deal damage. This kind of whining is around in pretty much every mindless F2P game that includes indirect fire in any capacity, and it always boils down to people not wanting to do any thinking beyond grinding their face into the enemy team as one big mob.

Allowing functional changes in trajectory and velocity, allowing player choice in these, is not necessarily a bad thing- but I do not see PGI putting in the due diligence to make these changes benefit LRM pilots in any meaningful way and judging by what I'm seeing here it's basically just being used to force players into exposing themselves, ultimately because the vast majority of players refuse to mount AMS, pilot ECM mechs, or properly utilize maps in a way that won't predictably place them in the open (IE: Alright everyone, lets run to the middle of the map and brawl like every single other match we've ever played). Does the new trajectory detect friendly pilots, or is this going to mean you have to stand line-abreast to avoid dealing with friendly fire?

I would be much happier if these changes were neutral to the existing LRM gameplay rather than a drastic nerf. If PPC heat was increased by 1/4th to 1/3rd across the board with the accompanying velocity people would be rioting. This is less about people being angry about "unfair mechanics" and altering LRMs accordingly, and more about people still being unwilling to use existing hard counters that are freely available for almost all mechs.

So while we're on the topic of nerfs to indirect fire and force multipliers, why don't we go the opposite direction and talk about why PGI still hasn't implemented the year 3012's Long Tom Cannon? Oh, sorry- I guess that would also interrupt everyone's favorite senseless meta of running around in a giant disorganized blob of pinpoint damage weapons and one-shotting mechs one at a time. That's more "fun" and "interesting" than getting rained to death by LRMs because you refused to mount AMS, ECM, Target Deprivation, utilize any cover, or mounted such a small engine that you couldn't move to safety.

So many valid points but don't forget without the garbage free C3 lockon people would not be getting out of LOS locks in the first place?
Also.
What if they DO, Due diigence? Would be great correct?

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 January 2019 - 07:13 PM.

[HenryFA]

Ahhh yes, the salt from dem LRM boat leaches, I like how PGI decide to step up and change LRMs!

Gott get your own locks now, heh.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

Great another useless "tweeking" of a weapons system to address a perceived issue which has nothing to do with the real issue which is stacking / boating.

You wonder why Solaris is dead ?

Well, the issue there as well as in QP is the stacking / boating of AC's, SRM's, LRM's, etc, etc.

A much simpler solution is to start introducing a jam mechanic of you decide to go past 2 ( e.g 3+ SRM's / LRM's ) of a given ammo based weapons system.

[HammerMaster]

HenryFA, on 14 January 2019 - 07:16 PM, said:

Ahhh yes, the salt from dem LRM boat leaches, I like how PGI decide to step up and change LRMs!

Gott get your own locks now, heh.

Laugh now until you get a face full of IS ALRMx20 at 300 meters direct fired.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 January 2019 - 07:26 PM.

[Sgt Grunt]

You want to improve the game take OUT all consumables. All new players and players without premium accounts cannot afford 1 let alone 5 of them. Make it FAIR to all players.

[HammerMaster]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 14 January 2019 - 07:25 PM, said:

Great another useless "tweeking" of a weapons system to address a perceived issue which has nothing to do with the real issue which is stacking / boating.

You wonder why Solaris is dead ?

Well, the issue there as well as in QP is the stacking / boating of AC's, SRM's, LRM's, etc, etc.

A much simpler solution is to start introducing a jam mechanic of you decide to go past 2 ( e.g 3+ SRM's / LRM's ) of a given ammo based weapons system.

Does not compute.

[HenryFA]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 07:26 PM, said:

Laugh now until you get a face full of IS ALRMx20 at 300 meters direct fired.

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.

[GweNTLeR]

@PGI
I would also like to highlight Give Dropships Lurms topic (Link to Faction Play subforum). Since almost the whole FP community participated in a poll, I guess we can hope for an official response?

Edited by GweNTLeR, 14 January 2019 - 07:41 PM.

[cougurt]

i feel that the steep flight path and ability to indirect fire are important in distinguishing LRMs from the other weapon systems. while i'd like to see their reliance on IDF reduced, pushing them too far away from that role runs the risk of putting them in competition with direct fire weapons, which leads to one of two scenarios:

1. LRMs become strictly inferior to other options and only serve as a noob trap.

2. LRMs become competitive with or superior to other options, marginalizing the more skill-based weapon systems.

i'm not a fan of the mindless nature of LRMs in their current state, but the fact that they can at least do something unique means that they don't necessarily have to encroach on roles that are already filled by other weapons.

banana peel, on 14 January 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

So far doesnt look like the indirect fire nerf is sufficient, Chris. Clan LRMs are a bigger problem today, and what they practically get is -15 m/s and that is all. Not nearly enough to incentivize people to engage and put themselves into danger.

Bigger indirect lock-on time, much bigger indirect spread and, if possible, less tracking ability from indirect fire - and the gameplay can change. But with those values above - not a chance.

this is a good idea, and would also act as a small nerf to ATMs and streaks. i would say that the lock angle change should probably be rolled back if this happens though.