43 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Mole, on 04 February 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

Direct fire or no, no amount of LRM launchers will allow me to vomit out a disgusting 72 damage like ATMs will in their proper range bracket.

This. ATMs do absolutely broken damage in the 120m-270m bracket. LRMs simply cant compete with that kindve damage.

The only real advantage CLRMs had over ATMs was IDF. With IDF being weakened ATMs will now be that much better compared to CLRMs.

The real question is whats the point of CLRMs if IDF is weaker? Making them better at DF is stupid since they still cant compete with ATMs or other weapons for DF. Nerfing IDF and buffing DF was pretty much the dumbest decision PGI could make regarding LRMs because the whole purpose of LRMs is IDF. How does genericizing LRMs by making them less unique help the game? It doesnt really.

You dont fix weapons by making them worse at the one thing theyre supposed to be good at. Making LRMs worse at IDF is like the equivalent of nerfing the velocity of the ERPPC. Or nerfing the damage/beam duration of pulse lasers. Youre just making the weapon worse at its intended role and less specialized and ultimately less unique. PGI has a very bad habit of doing that... they arnt good at creating unique roles for weapons so its no wonder weapon balance sucks so badly.

Spheroid, on 02 February 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

In isolation the ATM still beats the MRM at medium range. Fewer salvos of ATM12 are required to kill a static assault size target than an MRM20 of equal weight.

Because MRMs are terrible at medium range. They always have been.

Just like LRMs are terrible at long range. If a weapon isnt effective past 600m its not long range.

Again PGI isnt good at making weapons perform well at their intended roles. Even if that role is blatantly obvious in their namesake. Even worse is that fact that PGI constantly makes weapons worse at their intended roles FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Edited by Khobai, 04 February 2019 - 11:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 04 February 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

This. ATMs do absolutely broken damage in the 120m-270m bracket. LRMs simply cant compete with that kindve damage.

The only real advantage CLRMs had over ATMs was IDF. With IDF being weakened ATMs will now be that much better compared to CLRMs.

If you think about it, it's not like LRMs aren't exactly competing with damage, but more of competing with range. As in Above 270m (with gradual reduction at the damage plateaus), the LRM would work well on the purposes of 300 to 600 meters.

And no, Aside from IDF, the LRMs have better damage/ton at mid-range, with less heat.

Khobai, on 04 February 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

The real question is whats the point of CLRMs if IDF is weaker? Making them better at DF is stupid since they still cant compete with ATMs or other weapons for DF. Nerfing IDF and buffing DF was pretty much the dumbest decision PGI could make regarding LRMs because the whole purpose of LRMs is IDF. How does genericizing LRMs by making them less unique help the game? It doesnt really.

LRMs can't beat ATMs at their sweet-spot, but beyond that LRMs beat ATMs -- at least once the dual-arc has been implemented.

Now for the other weapons, I kinda agree, but people did point out that as a homing weapon, it's not supposed to be that competitive.

My take for it is to be decent, and not laughably bad that hating LRMs is a meme. It so that at least, if LRMs was brought and it's less of the weapon system's fault, and more of the player's fault. At least when IDF sucks so bad, DF won't.

Khobai, on 04 February 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

You dont fix weapons by making them worse at the one thing theyre supposed to be good at.

You know what fixes weapons? Addressing the shortcomings, and in this case, it's LRMs and DF.

And No, LRMs aren't good at IDF, they are however the only weapon in the game made for IDF -- having monopoly doesn't mean they are good. And they are so bad at it, they need a good amount of setup to work tremendously well.

To be fair though, with a bit of complicated aiming, you can IDF ATMs by locking your torso while looking up. But that is hardly for IDF role.

Khobai, on 04 February 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

Youre just making the weapon worse at its intended role and less specialized and ultimately less unique. PGI has a very bad habit of doing that... they arnt good at creating unique roles for weapons so its no wonder weapon balance sucks so badly.

A bent fork is unique, but not because you are unique it means you are useful.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 February 2019 - 11:49 PM.

[Khobai]

The6thMessenger, on 04 February 2019 - 11:42 PM, said:

If you think about it, it's not like LRMs aren't exactly competing with damage, but more of competing with range. As in Above 270m (with gradual reduction at the damage plateaus), the LRM would work well on the purposes of 300 to 600 meters.

And no, Aside from IDF, the LRMs have better damage/ton at mid-range, with less heat.

ATMs are still outright better at DF. Its absolutely worth it to take a slight dip in medium range damage to do absolutely crushing short range damage. LRMs dont crush anything at ANY range. The slight benefit LRMs get at midrange doesnt even come close to the absolute dominance of ATMs at short range. What a joke if you even think that.

The only reason to use CLRMs over ATMs is IDF. And if IDF is getting nerfed theres that much less reason to use CLRMs. Nerfing IDF can only be construed as a nerf to CLRMs.

The6thMessenger, on 04 February 2019 - 11:42 PM, said:

You know what fixes weapons? Addressing the shortcomings, and in this case, it's LRMs and DF.

No lol. You dont fix weapons by making them better at what theyre bad at. You fix weapons by making them better at what theyre already good at.

Making LRMs better at DF still doesnt make them good weapons. Because theyre still worse at DF than every other DF weapon. Derp. NOTHING IS FIXED. Now not only are they worse at DF than other weapons theyre worse at IDF too. WOW SUCH FIX.

The6thMessenger, on 04 February 2019 - 11:42 PM, said:

A bent fork is unique, but not because you are unique it means you are useful.

That analogy is stupid.

IDF was both unique and useful. It was not a bent fork.

Nerfing IDF just made LRMs less unique and less useful. And making LRMs better at DF doesnt make them more unique or useful because every other weapon in the game is DF and better at it than LRMs.

These changes just genericize LRMs by making them more like other weapons and doesnt even raise them to the same power level as other weapons. its the exact same thing they did to pulse lasers when they ruined them. And like theyve done with countless other weapons.

PGI sucks at balancing. And continues to prove how bad they suck at it.

Edited by Khobai, 05 February 2019 - 01:05 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

ATMs are still outright better at DF. Its absolutely worth it to take a slight dip in medium range damage to do absolutely crushing short range damage.

DF at under 270m and above 120m, don't forget that.

You might as well argue to never use AC2 because there's AC20. What a ridiculous statement.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

LRMs dont crush anything at ANY range. The slight benefit LRMs get at midrange doesnt even come close to the absolute dominance of ATMs at short range. What a joke if you even think that.

What I think is that weapons do certain jobs, and would have certain band of effectiveness. ATMs dominate short-range sure, but that is completely irrelevant when we're talking about mid-range -- for obvious reasons.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

The only reason to use CLRMs over ATMs is IDF. And if IDF is getting nerfed theres that much less reason to use CLRMs. Nerfing IDF can only be construed as a nerf to CLRMs.

Also lower heat and better damage/volley which translates better DPS and sustained DPS at mid-range if you can keep the distance.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

No lol. You dont fix weapons by making them better at what theyre bad at. You fix weapons by making them better at what theyre already good at.

You also, fix weapons by making them better at what they aren't good at. And certainly LRMs are bad on their own, the DF arc somewhat fixes that.

IDF with the homing-system is a touchy element here, not only you basically have "easy-mode" as other people claim it, the IDF means it can be really frustrating because it's hard to counter once they actually have a good setup to use them. Look up B33f LRM Maximum, and marvel at LRM's "OP"ness once you got a competent team geared for it.

What can be done for the IDF is less about buffs or nerfs by the heat or spread or speed, but rather to to make the IDF easier to do effectively, less counterable, or rather the weapon system a lot less reliant on baby-sitting with locks.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

Making LRMs better at DF still doesnt make them good weapons. Because theyre still worse at DF than every other DF weapon. Derp. NOTHING IS FIXED. Now not only are they worse at DF than other weapons theyre worse at IDF too. WOW SUCH FIX.

These changes just genericize LRMs by making them more like other weapons and doesnt even raise them to the same power level as other weapons. its the exact same thing they did to pulse lasers when they ruined them. And like theyve done with countless other weapons.

What if i tell you that it's not supposed to make them good weapons, but it's supposed to make them "Not-Bad"? It's supposed to be able to contribute, even if there's better weapons for it.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

That analogy is stupid. IDF was both unique and useful. It was not a bent fork.

Being unique doesn't make it useful. Being useful makes it useful. All that IDF nonsense wouldn't worth anything if you aren't landing them.

As such you aren't being useful when a 3x AMS kitfox or Nova is shutting down your missiles, whether it's ATMs or LRMs. You aren't being useful when the stealth-armor is disjointing your missiles.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

Nerfing IDF just made LRMs less unique and less useful.

It is, if you are limiting it only to IDF use. Once you get to DF use, you'd get far more mileage.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

And making LRMs better at DF doesnt make them more unique or useful because every other weapon in the game is DF and better at it than LRMs.

That's not how you measure usefulness, it's about when you can hold your own, and contribute.

Khobai, on 05 February 2019 - 12:48 AM, said:

PGI sucks at balancing. And continues to prove how bad they suck at it.

At least, they are willing to try. And the PTS was a good try.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 February 2019 - 05:54 AM.