57 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 30 January 2019 - 10:05 PM, said:

Not that I agree with what he seem to be saying, I'm actually cool with LRMs being good for DF. But i'd rather focus with what good it will do, by garnering better interest to DF users like me.

Precisely why I said to him stop balancing by the people we both hate.
Fix it for direct fire enthusiast.
Make it lore style usable but lore style terrible idf.
So far the pts does not and probably can not address everyone's free c3 style lock on.
But we HAVE to do something.

Edited by HammerMaster, 31 January 2019 - 07:56 AM.

[denofsteves]

In lore, direct fire LRMs are a feature of Artemis IV. Indirect fire with Artemis IV is no different from normal LRM fire. ATMs are direct fire only because they include Artemis IV by default.

I suggest adding the direct fire feature ONLY to Artemis IV equipped launchers to make Artemis IV a legitimate consideration. This already has a built-in trade-off because of the extra weight and crit space. Direct fire Artemis IV LRMs would be a viable weapon for 'mechs with 1 or 2 launchers.

Boating is a different problem, and I think it is related to ammo count. Lore-friendly mixed-build play requires people to run out of ammo. That UAC2 boat in the back is just as bad as the LRM boat in the back, both just spamming away all match. If the boats ran out of ammo sooner, the risk/reward for boating would be drastically different.

Edited by denofsteves, 31 January 2019 - 03:53 PM.

[HammerMaster]

denofsteves, on 31 January 2019 - 02:49 PM, said:

In lore, direct fire LRMs are a feature of Artemis IV. Indirect fire with Artemis IV is no different from normal LRM fire. ATMs are direct fire only because they include Artemis IV by default.

Pretty sure this is not the case.
How else would you explain IDF rules in old lvl 1 rules?
Though Artemis is not usable in IDF mode.

[denofsteves]

HammerMaster, on 31 January 2019 - 03:36 PM, said:

Pretty sure this is not the case.

I'll concede on the lore issue, I was not able to find the reference to Artemis being direct fire that I thought I had seen.

[HammerMaster]

denofsteves, on 31 January 2019 - 03:52 PM, said:

I'll concede on the lore issue, I was not able to find the reference to Artemis being direct fire that I thought I had seen.

[The6thMessenger]

Could we please ever get back that dancing missiles in the air?

[Nightbird]

Suggest

1. removing the lock-on mechanic (can simply instantly LRM anything that's target-able)
2. double all current missiles spreads (i.e. 5m > 10m)
3. give missile spread reduction based on: direct line of sight: -25%, artemis: -25%, narc: -15%, tag -15%

i.e. if using someone else's lock only, your spread is 10m, if they are NARCed and Tagged, -30% is still 7m with indirect fire, but if you have direct line of sight + Artemis, -50% to spread is 5m (remember no lock-on time) and you can further stack with narc and tag if available.

Lastly, change the weight of Artemis to Xtons/5 launchers for it to make more sense. Like 0.25 tons or 0.5 tons.

Why these changes?
Removing the lock-on mechanic is critical if you want the LRM carrying mech to obtain LOS on targets. This allows the person to fire as soon as a target is target-able when exposing. Currently, no matter now you buff direct fire LRMs, having the lock-on time + LOS ensures eating damage without being able to roll. Removing the lock-on mechanic is a huge buff though, so the default spread needs to be majorly nerfed. To encourage LoS, give spread reduction for LoS, and also for Artemis (which requires LoS). To balance all of this out, indirect fire is still possible with regular targeting, NARC and TAG but effectiveness is reduced.

Spread does need to be live. If you fire while in LoS but hide while missiles are mid-way, they should lose the LoS spread bonus.

Edited by Nightbird, 31 January 2019 - 09:57 PM.

[General Solo]

Nightbird, on 31 January 2019 - 09:54 PM, said:

3. give missile spread reduction based on: direct line of sight: -25%, artemis: -25%, narc: -15%, tag -15%

Nah nah nah
Its a Support weapon system for crying out Lore, yes make it so newbz who are typically drawn to it are moar competitive in comparison to the top end but lets not go overboard for a weapon at aims for you.

3. give missile spread reduction based on:
direct line of sight: -10% + speed boast, artemis: -20% + speed boast, narc: -35-50% , tag -27.0123456789%, indirect without narc or tag +20-50% compared to LOS spread tune indirect to flavour

Edit: Tag can get two bonuses, the TAG and LOS bonuses if tag with LOS

I think this is better.

Its Lerms not artillery in the modern sense which current back field Lermers are except they steal troops from the front line unlike real modern artillery

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 01 February 2019 - 02:58 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

As for making LRM DF and IDF more distinct with one another, wouldn't it make ATMs a bit more unnecessary?

ATMs ton-for-ton only really shine in it's sweet-spot, and beyond that it's waste of ammo. It's heat is far higher than LRMs for less the damage that which the LRM provides beyond the sweet-spot. And now it's going to be borderline-robbed with it's DF role with LRMs.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 05:37 PM, said:

As for making LRM DF and IDF more distinct with one another, wouldn't it make ATMs a bit more unnecessary?

ATMs ton-for-ton only really shine in it's sweet-spot, and beyond that it's waste of ammo. It's heat is far higher than LRMs for less the damage that which the LRM provides beyond the sweet-spot. And now it's going to be borderline-robbed with it's DF role with LRMs.

Please don't forget that IS does NOT have ATM.

[The6thMessenger]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:03 PM, said:

Please don't forget that IS does NOT have ATM.

Well, Clan has ATMs. Lets focus on that.

[HammerMaster]

The6thMessenger, on 01 February 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

Well, Clan has ATMs. Lets focus on that.

That's fine but don't penalize IS.

[Reno Blade]

Great to hear there will be a PTS2.0 for missiles (LRMs).

What I suggest to be adressed:

- slightly higher base heat and cooldown (to reduce spamming)
- much higher heat scale penalty (to make it much less useful with super-size volleys) -> ofc it will not prevent 4x LRM20 chainfired (thats why need point1)
- Targeting range depending on your mechs sensor strength and targets radar signature (see InfoWarfare PTS3.0 long ago).
- Ammo adjustment per faction (IS 200/ton, Clan 120/ton) this would offset the 50% weight/size advantage of Clans a bit.

[General Solo]

Why have an assualt mech if you cant boat
Just nerf indirect spread without tag/narc
And give LOS a speed boast

[Jonathan8883]

I still want to see the lock cone reticle nerf fixed. That was a bigger change than anything else being talked about, and it negatively impacted ALL lock-on missiles....with no PTS or testing.

[KursedVixen]

Prototelis, on 29 January 2019 - 06:10 PM, said:

This is why these changes ultimately mean nothing. Auto-aim weapons should not compete with direct fire weapons that require you to track and lead targets.

agreed

[KursedVixen]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 06:23 PM, said:

That's fine but don't penalize IS.

That's fine too but don't penalize Clans either... besides IS has MRMs which are basicly longer ranged Srms.

[The pessimistic optimist]

I am 100% fine with nerfing indirect fire to get improved over all LRMs that work like they should.