16 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Now that we have this decreased angle of DF fire for LRMs being tested with PTS.

Do you think we could also increase the angle of IDF fire for LRMs? This way we can increase the velocity of LRM's direct-fire while being faster to land than IDF, but IDF would have better clearance over obstacles.

[El Bandito]

Current IDF angle is good enough already IMO, at least for IS launchers. Any higher and you will literally make covers useless.

I went through the 90 degree LRMpocalypse and it was not fun.

Edited by El Bandito, 15 January 2019 - 04:50 PM.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 15 January 2019 - 04:34 PM, said:

Now that we have this decreased angle of DF fire for LRMs being tested with PTS.

Do you think we could also increase the angle of IDF fire for LRMs? This way we can increase the velocity of LRM's direct-fire while being faster to land than IDF, but IDF would have better clearance over obstacles.

Lets see how the PTS goes first.

[HammerMaster]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Current IDF angle is good enough already IMO, at least for IS launchers. Any higher and you will literally make covers useless.

Ya its a fine line. I want more also but that risk of useless cover...

[The6thMessenger]

El Bandito, on 15 January 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

Current IDF angle is good enough already IMO, at least for IS launchers. Any higher and you will literally make covers useless.

I went through the 90 degree LRMpocalypse and it was not fun.

Well, could we also test for increases? Current seems to be at 45 degrees, and the apocalypse you said was 90 degrees. How about 60 degrees?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 January 2019 - 05:11 PM.

[dario03]

Sounds like to much buffs. If they have good DF and great IDF, why use anything else except maybe a couple of backup lasers for sub 180m?

[The6thMessenger]

dario03, on 15 January 2019 - 05:18 PM, said:

Sounds like to much buffs. If they have good DF and great IDF, why use anything else except maybe a couple of backup lasers for sub 180m?

Probably because it's inefficient, can't fire on demand (technically could but wouldn't be effective cause it's not homing), and can't target components like other weapons.

It's only really that great and the best option if you can't aim for ****.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 15 January 2019 - 05:31 PM.

[Jakob Knight]

The reason you use other weapons than LRMs are: Concentrated Damage as opposed to damage spread across the entire target, no need to lock onto the target, minimum range, no ammo concerns (lasers), ability to target specific locations, and no need to get through defenses such as AMS, ECM, and whatever cover the target can get between before the missiles hit.

LRMs have always had their advantages and disadvantages, but all people who come under fire from them tend to see are the advantages. It's an old, old argument, but every weapon has its place. The thing you don't want to do is remove the place of LRMs in the drive to make them more brawling weapons.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Higher arcing LRMs might be intersting if they had dramatically increased spread as to compensate, but too many maps have really bad LRM cover as is.

[HammerMaster]

WHY IS EVERYONE FORGETTING IT IS IDF GETS BAD SPREAD IN THE PTS!?

[El Bandito]

The6thMessenger, on 15 January 2019 - 05:05 PM, said:

Well, could we also test for increases? Current seems to be at 45 degrees, and the apocalypse you said was 90 degrees. How about 60 degrees?

Nah. I lurmed tons for years and IS launchers already have good enough angle for IDF. Perhaps Clan launchers need higher angles for IDF, at the risk of making them more similar to IS launchers.

[Y E O N N E]

No.

[Jackal Noble]

As if IS IDF of 90° behind cover needs to have further angle of attack

[Y E O N N E]

I'm not interested in any buffs to IDF whatsoever.

[Siegegun]

Lets test the changes incoming before we change the changes before they have even changed anything.

[YueFei]

Manual IDF would be more interesting, along with an actual varying flight profile for the missiles, with steadily decreasing missile agility as its maneuvering budget is gradually exhausted.

Then you could manually IDF with a very high arc, but this reduces your range, and also bleeds the missiles of energy so that by the time they reach their target they are much less agile, giving an aware target the opportunity to evade them.

This will never happen, because PGI is loathe to actually touch the core engine.

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 15 January 2019 - 04:34 PM, said:

Now that we have this decreased angle of DF fire for LRMs being tested with PTS.

Do you think we could also increase the angle of IDF fire for LRMs? This way we can increase the velocity of LRM's direct-fire while being faster to land than IDF, but IDF would have better clearance over obstacles.

Personally, I would not mind some angle increase, but I think many others would.. It would probably be totally OP in competent hands, and have no siginficant effect in the hands of a new player..

It would be funny to watch all the "LRMs are a no skill weapon" people go bananas tho

I would much rather see LRM bending being brought back..