43 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

Around would not be ok,

I meant that DF should take less Volley to kill than IDF.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

direct should be 10-20% better then indirect,
spread is the way to go for this.

I prefer 30 - 50% better spread.

Yes, i agree, spread should do this. Unfortunately, PGI has this wierd tracking that you hit legs more than torso, so it's 30% more volleys to kill in DF.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

Buff direct by lower locktimes and the option to manipulate the flightpath,

..

and a worthy artemis and we can go.

Yes.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

(bending worked best at 200-300m and was useless over 500m, even under something you could bend your lrms a little to get a little futher without hitting the ceiling)

I'd rather they just remade the system to be natural use for bending.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

Maybe nerf narc a little, more then 1 minute is too much,

I'd rather they made IDF a lot *******, but needed NARC and TAG to be adequate.

Kroete, on 20 January 2019 - 02:14 AM, said:

doing something for the doing without understanding the problem.

I know right?

[Chados]

I actually like the change. It automatically shifts to high angle when you’ve got a teammate between you and the target. I’d like to try this in 12v12.

[Mumuharra]

Jesus, LRMs are perfect as they are. Don't change it.
Use AMS.
I love playing LRM boats and know how good AMS and some lights can counter me.
But that is bad for the monster alpha shot layouts. The real problem of this game in my eyes.

Really, this pissy way of "balancing" is what made me reduce my gametime and prevents me from preordering MW5.
You can rely on PGI that if things can be made worse, they find out how and do it.

Edited by Mumuharra, 20 January 2019 - 09:17 AM.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 20 January 2019 - 01:20 AM, said:

That moment you're describing yourself, how ironic.

Nice..real nice love the digs you can't seem to not be inflamatory can you?

You lack comprehention in most of my points and chose to alter the narative to suit your needs.

So here is a very basic break down for you.

Flat trajectory with LOS will improve LRM performances but still make LRMs the WORST choice for a direct fire weapon. By the very nature of being up on the front line facing down other mechs LRMS ARE competing with other weapon systems that without any doubt severely out perform LRMs in that role.

Only a total moron would stand exposed incapable of radical defensive manuvers (twisting) while they achieve a lock...launch...hold the lock while the 190mps velocity projectiles gently float over to the enemy through a hailstorm of AMS to tickle the targets armor over three body segments while they themselves get ripped apart with RAC fire aimed through thier core.

So essentially the only players incetivised to use this new direct fire mechanic are the players dumber than the back field LURM-turtles everyone B*tches about.

We would need LRMs utilized in direct fire to have 800mps velocity a 50% spread reduction and a range increase to 1200m minimum!

Really think on this how "long ranged" are LRMs?

ALL class 2/5/10 autocannons equal or exceed LRM range that's 12 weapon systems there.

All PPCs save the snubnose exceed LRM range add in those and we have 17 total weapons that exceed LRM range

Large lasers equal LRM range
Heavy large lasers equal LRM range
Clan and I.S. ER large lasers exceed LRM range
Clan Large pulse exceed LRM range...so we now have 22 weapon systems that meet or beat LRM ranges.

Now we can add in ATMS for 23 weapon types that meet or beat LRM ranges.

Even the ER-medium lasers can challenge a target out to 720m / 800m for clan and that is about as excesable a weapon system as it gets.

So what I'm saying is spending 4 tons on an artemis LRM5 + 1 ton ammo with intent to utilize this to challenge and equal weight in ER-medium lasers is idiotic.Just use the lasers they will deal more consistant damage at similar ranges there is NO incentive to pack LRMs as direct fire weapons as they are now. And the options only broaden with more tonnage wasted on LRMs.

Are the LRM direct fire changes improving LRM performance ? sure but they still suck magnificently when compared to other options.

The ONLY selling point for LRMs was the capacity to utilize indirect or arcing fire to increase versitility of targeting options.

Nerfing indirect fire does not improve this

Flattening trajectories does not improve this.

The end results are ...

A severely inferior direct fire weapon that can not compete on the battlefield with many,many other options

A nerfed performance for indirect fire.

So what is the incentive?

Fight up on the front lines with a terrible weapon or suck at indirect fire?