59 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

We just did PTS for dual-arc LRMs.

Is the change going to be implemented live soon?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 February 2019 - 09:52 PM.

[Mole]

I dunno. I hope so. I'd love to give my Archer and my Kintaro back their LRMs that they did just fine with until they nerfed LRM5 spam which was really the only viable way to LRM anymore.

[GeminiWolf]

LRM's are OP please NERF...when I start playing again...or maybe I won't I might just start playing MW5 when it comes out

[justcallme A S H]

Probably not.

Why? There were some buts on that PTS and no doubt some data to fig through. It seemed, from what I saw of testing, the hest values did balance things better. Overall still work to be done with a few numbers in various areas.

If it does happen, it will take be the same as 2.1 (I wouldn't think) and that means Mar or April before that's all considered and sorted out.

Which at the end if the day is the logical approach.

[Nightbird]

I'm not sure how triple LRM nerfs will lead to LURMAGEDDON

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 14 February 2019 - 11:11 PM, said:

I'm not sure how triple LRM nerfs will lead to LURMAGEDDON

It's probably because of lots of people playing them at the same time, would end up most games playing mostly LRMs than every other weapon. Or at least i think that is what will happen.

[crazytimes]

I'll defnitely be trotting out a few multi AMS mechs when the LRM patch drops. Just because everyone will test them out... and AMS is easy experience to grind mechs.

[Thunder Child]

Ah. Lurmageddon due to quantity, rather than actual OPness.

To be honest, I'm hoping the LRM Patch goes through. It'll be nice to fit my LRM Buckets with LRMs again, instead of MRMs.
And my PopCat-C1 might see play again.

[LordNothing]

justcallme A S H, on 14 February 2019 - 10:44 PM, said:

Probably not.

Why? There were some buts on that PTS and no doubt some data to fig through. It seemed, from what I saw of testing, the hest values did balance things better. Overall still work to be done with a few numbers in various areas.

If it does happen, it will take be the same as 2.1 (I wouldn't think) and that means Mar or April before that's all considered and sorted out.

Which at the end if the day is the logical approach.

my biggest issue with the pts is i couldnt get on it. so i didnt get enough games in to draw any major conclusions. i like the idea behind the changes and want to see it in the live game, but it could easily go pear shaped if the live implementation isnt right. when has pgi ever pushed features live without gimping them first.

[Asym]

Well, with all of the meta this and meta that going around all of these years, maybe "any change" is better than no change, eh?!

I think MW5 is the fulcrum this teeter-totter game resides on.......one or the other will succeed but I can't see both "being viable" at the moment. Maybe, if MW5 really succeeds but, even that scares me because that would be yet another great excuse to bail out......

Improve any of the nerf'd weapons from the skill tree change and you'll have the respect of the player base.........even, if that change disturbs you because PGI is admitting they were wrong.

[Variant1]

Mole, on 14 February 2019 - 09:51 PM, said:

I dunno. I hope so. I'd love to give my Archer and my Kintaro back their LRMs that they did just fine with until they nerfed LRM5 spam which was really the only viable way to LRM anymore.

Lrms are always viable, i have no problems lrming with my catapult or trebuchet

[Spheroid]

You clearly don't understand the nature of these proposed changes. Generally when something is weakened it is used less often. So no, there will be no lurmageddon.

High trajectory is one best features of lurms. Taking that away in no way buffs them. Also you failed to mention heat changes.

Edited by Spheroid, 17 February 2019 - 02:22 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Spheroid, on 17 February 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

You clearly don't understand the nature of these proposed changes. Generally when something is weakened it is used less often. So no, there will be no lurmageddon.

People will check them out nonetheless, resulting in increased use for a short time.

Spheroid, on 17 February 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

High trajectory is one best features of lurms. Taking that away in no way buffs them. Also you failed to mention heat changes.

If you're just using them as IDF, then it's a nerf.

But the improvement of lock-on, smaller spread (as per PTS 2.1), and faster time-to-target makes this decent (if not competitive) in DF use, less of a joke, more effective, so thereby a buff. IIRC, heat changes is just to curb over-the-GH shots, and if anything LRM5 and LRM10s have higher GH Limit.

That being said, it all depends on the execution, such as the shortcoming of the PTS in terms of spread.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 February 2019 - 03:38 AM.

[Shadowomega1]

Well the Arch got snuck into the December patch and didn't get pulled till January so I don't see it becoming Lurmageddon however I do foresee people using LRM from within LOS from now on.

[GeminiWolf]

I have the perfect solution to this perceived problem with LURMs... play something else.

[Khobai]

How does the nerfing of LRMs lead to LRMageddon? Not following the logic.

The6thMessenger, on 17 February 2019 - 04:31 PM, said:

If you're just using them as IDF, then it's a nerf.

IDF is the entire purpose of LRMs. If you want DF guided missiles use ATMs, they are vastly better.

You think making LRMs worse at IDF and slightly better at DF, but still worse than every other weapon at DF, is a buff? Because its not.

Making a weapon worse at what its supposed to be good at (IDF and long range) and better what its not supposed to be good (DF and short-medium range) can in no way be considered a net buff. Its a net overall nerf. And worse than that its just genericizing LRMs by undermining what makes them unique from other weapons (IDF).

You really dont have to worry about LRMageddon... however I do think ATMs will get used more now that LRMs have been relegated to being worse ATMs. IDF was the only reason to use LRMs over ATMs and weakening that only makes ATMs that much more favorable.

Edited by Khobai, 18 February 2019 - 01:16 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

How does the nerfing of LRMs lead to LRMageddon? Not following the logic.

Because there would be a short burst of people trying them out all at once.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

IDF is the entire purpose of LRMs. If you want DF guided missiles use ATMs, they are vastly better.

Under 270m. That being said, it doesn't matter what you think it's role, it's the result. LRMs being vastly better on their own than they were before, that was the point.

It's less unique, but it works. ATMs still kinda works on mid-range, so LRMs that have better ROF and heat-efficiency would mean ATM is owned at mid-range. Believe it or not, the game doesn't revolve only on 270m.

The real problem of ATMs is it's lack of Ammo-Switching, which would have allowed us to balance ATMs as three different weapons.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

You think making LRMs worse at IDF and slightly better at DF, but still worse than every other weapon at DF, is a buff? Because its not.

Yes it is.

Because a buff is referenced by where it stands before, and it will stand better than before because it would work better than before due to immense factors in LOS use such as faster lock acquisition and time to target, which is VITAL to the success of landing LRMs.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

Making a weapon worse at what its supposed to be good at (IDF and long range) and better what its not supposed to be good (DF and short-medium range) can in no way be considered a net buff. Its a net overall nerf. And worse than that its just genericizing LRMs by undermining what makes them unique from other weapons (IDF).

No, YOU won't consider it a net buff (like somehow you're the authority about this), on the grounds that somehow, just because it's less unique, less better than it's supposed niche, it's a nerf.

Wrong, just wrong. The problems of LRMs is it's poor time to target which is why it's not that useful at extremely long range where it's supposedly used for, the spread, and the need to lock. The LOS use, though sacrifices safety a bit, solves a lot of the problem, such as smaller spread, faster time to target, and faster lock time. We tested that in PTS, and we saw good results.

Like i said, It's only a nerf if you're using it IDF. LRMs should now be better at contributing to the match over all due to LOS use, and if you just restrict yourself in IDF use then it's your fault, not the changes' fault.

Use it as DF and it would work far better than it is before, it's not competitive with other DF weapons, but again it is better than what it was before. Granted, there are problems, like PGI double-downing on locking issues such as the smaller lock cone compounded with long lock time.

Effective IDFing means an effective team, not just an effective individual. Unless your team is at the same page with spotting, they won't be that reliable in holding locks for you. "Hold locks plz", remember that? It's just unreasonable to ask random people to spot for you if they aren't equipped for it.

This is where TAG and NARC come in for spotting builds, it's understood that they are there to spot for you so you could IDF more reliably, and by making them necessary for effective spotting, means the power could be focused more on DF which is just better team contribution at all without reliable spotter, and thereby better chance of contributing to the team more than simply leeching them for score. This also should make spotting builds more common, because they are somewhat forced into the game by such a role.

If you still can't understand that, I can't help you.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

You really dont have to worry about LRMageddon

Not really worried, just asking, cause I'm excited for it.

Khobai, on 18 February 2019 - 01:04 AM, said:

however I do think ATMs will get used more now that LRMs have been relegated to being worse ATMs. IDF was the only reason to use LRMs over ATMs and weakening that only makes ATMs that much more favorable.

I use LRMs for higher sustained DPS at range, problem with ATMs is that they are WAAAY hotter than LRMs so using them other than their sweet spot is poor heat efficiency, ATMs basically work worse than LRMs in mid-range, and it's a complete waste at Long-Range. LRMs on the other hand, not only with LOS it can land faster and thereby extending it's supposedly effective range of 400m, it works far better at long range with ATMs, which allows it to reign over ATMs in mid-range to long-range, which is still fine.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 February 2019 - 03:37 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

For people that get there own targets this change is much better for lurms.

[Acersecomic]

All I know is that I will be playing my triple AMS Nova until LURMing dies down a bit. Hopefuly I get a few bay slots so I can field TripleAMS+ECM and QuadAMS Piranha.
Ohhh, my heart weeps we got WarhammerIIC instead of Corsair first, I so wanted that QuadAMS assault <3

[Novakaine]

It won't be "Lurmageddon" however the trolls will turn it into "Trollageddon".
Why?
Because they try their damnedest to break everything in the game unless it suits them.