Sjorpha, on 10 March 2019 - 09:24 AM, said:
I know the intention, the first problem is that the changes are in the opposite direction. These changes mainly buffs indirect fire which is where velocity matters the most (more important the farther the distance and the shorter the lock window). Flatter arc in direct fire is a nerf, as the main advantage of lurming up in the front is the ability to lob missiles over teammates and obstacles. This change actually encourages actively breaking Los so you can get a higher arc, the opposite of the intended effect.
It's also a questionable intention in itself. Why would making the very few idf weapon systems in the game worse at idf be an improvement in flavor? Isn't it more flavourful to make "long range missiles" the weapon that is actually really really good at indirect long range fire? Because that seems much more flavorful to me than insisting they need to be made better at direct fire like all the other weapons.
Regarding the AMS discussion I think the true reason people don't use it is because, despite all the whining, lrms don't have enough impact on the game to motivate widespread use of dedicated counters, regardless of whether those counters are effective or not.
In other words it doesn't really matter how well AMS counters LRMS because it's not generally worth 1,5+ tons to counter LRMS in the first place.
Now, I may have missed something, but I don't recall a velocity buff to indirect fired LRMs, only direct fired ones. So this shouldn't lead to any buffs to the characteristic you are describing.
The flatter arc in direct fire may be a buff (because it is suppose to mean the missiles travel faster) or it may be a nerf (can't shoot things at any reasonable distance as it might become too easy to block with terrain, despite the higher velocity/shorter time to target). The inability to shoot over intervening allies might also serve as a problem, unless the system is sensitive enough to register them as "need indirect"... I never got the chance to try the PTS, so I never got to test this function.
In short, it may end up promoting indirect because direct fire becomes too difficult to land shots onto targets. I can't say until I see it in action nor until players start to adjust and use the system. I would have hoped that the PTS would have shown if this was the case, but I don't have access to that data nor did I play on the PTS (this time) to be able to have any experience with the new system. (I'm not saying it wont promote indirect more, just that I can't say as I don't know.)
Have you read though the forums, or just this thread? Some people want to remove IDF from the game completely, and have for some time. LRMs have long been called "cancerous to the game" just because of it's IDF capabilities. People don't like taking damage and not being able to retaliate onto the source of the damage. This makes them frustrated. People also don't like how others use LRMs (even I can't argue against that, as I've seen many LRM users/boats use LRMs very poorly), of particular note when they hide in the back at 1000+m away from the action, not presenting themselves as a target, and often either completely out of their own weapon ranges or at least outside of their effective ranges (which is typically around 600m or closer, closer being better). It's as bad as when I see someone trying to shoot their SL at targets 800m+ away like they are doing damage... I still see that and I'm in T1! Overall, I don't believe it's really the weapon, but just how people tend to use them.
I will also comment that there have been many people asking for a difference between direct and indirect fire, often with request to lower arc, faster velocity to even increased damage per missile when fired in direct line of sight! People have also had a long standing request (good or bad) to have indirect fired weapons be penalized in some manner, either by increased spread, reduced damage, lower arcs to make it more difficult to shoot indirectly, to removal of homing and requiring a manual "range finder" for indirect (with the same slow velocity, mind). Now, I wont say all these ideas are "great", but the general consensus has been for some desire to weaken indirect and strengthen direct fired missiles.
I'm not opposed to trying out changes to LRM direct/indirect behavior. It could give the weapon some added flavor and help reign in indirect capabilities. (Which is why I wished I had participated in the PTS, so I could have weighed in on the discussion.)
With AMS, you have several (I can think of four) schools of general thought. Some of then are similar in concept, but still differ enough to be mentioned:
1. Those that think AMS is not worth the tonnage because they know counters to them in game play that doesn't rely on AMS. These people don't feel LRMs are a threat, and for them it often times may not be, or they at least will claim it. (Can't say if LRMs are a threat to them or not.)
2. Those that think AMS is not worth the tonnage because it's not effective enough. These people want AMS buffed OR LRMs nerfed, but also haven't seen what they can do in larger numbers than just a handful of them.
3. Those that think AMS is useless because they still die from LRMs despite having AMS on their mech. Ignores the fact that they stood out in the open, and were alone or the only member of their team with AMS (or only one in the area with one). Also may have been in a few matches where one team had more LRMs than normal, and/or their team had little to no AMS. These people want AMS buffed and LRMs nerfed.
4. Those that think AMS is effective, but only in massed numbers when taken as a team. They often think that not enough people take AMS to make it effective in countering larger numbers of LRMs. These people can become frustrated from lack of AMS on their teams, which might lead to them joining one of the other camps.
For the record, even with my numbers and crunching some averages, if the enemy team is really heavy on the LRMs, it is correct that AMS will not save you. It softens the blow and can reduce small to medium (upwards of a couple hundred missiles in air) to dust (with everyone having one, in each other's protective effect, with some in good positiing). If a few hundred (say, 500+) missiles are coming in, no amount of AMS is going to take that down (and neither should it considering tonnage commitment levels). It will still soften the blow, but it's only going to buy you so much time. Best utilize what time the massed AMS (if you have it) will get you trying to get close. Considering many assaults can have 80+ tubes when boated... a few hundred LRMs in flight can be achieved if a team has decided to fit themselves up for it.
The biggest issue with AMS is... It only counters missiles and a single one doesn't do much on it's own most times. If your opponent has taken any amount of missiles (of note, LRMs or ATMs), then it can be worth it's tonnage. If your opponent has no missiles and are all snipers/brawlers/anything-but-missiles... Then it was a complete waste of tonnage. As people don't like to set up things and mechs for "in this situation, it is good", most people see AMS as a large potential waste of tonnage.
Would you want to take a weapon that "might not work this match", even if it was good when it did work? Probably not because it's not worth the risk when you can take a weapon that will always work, even if it's just a little worse. Now, take that mentality to something that can take the tonnage/slots that could have been a weapon, that does no damage at all, might have no use in a match, and is only really effective when it is needed when you've got more than one? That is the mentality behind why AMS is useless for it's tonnage, despite it actually being reasonably good (for it's tonnage) when it does have an effect in a match. If AMS could always be used as something to deal damage when not in use shooting missiles, say like a MG, people probably would take it more often, as then it would always be able to be useful, rather in dealing damage or blocking missiles when the enemy does have them...
I mean, 1.5 tons of AMS (AMS and 1 ton ammo) can block an LRM5 headed for you specifically on it's own. That's a 1-2 ton investment on the enemy side, excluding tonnage for ammo. It pays for itself in missile situations by tonnage spent on it to tonnage countered on the enemy side. But, as mentioned above, in a situation where there are no missiles, AMS becomes 1.5 tons and two crits of wasted space. It's situational, which is it's largest problem for many people.
8
