121 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

InfinityBall, on 21 March 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

The maximum non-missile loadout on that thing is what, 3 LPL? It's either going to use missiles, or it's not going to be used at all

Of course, if it is used at all, that is a vote for missiles not being terrible

Meanwhile we could actually use MRMs or LRMs, or use energy-weapons WITH missile weapons.

[InfinityBall]

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

Meanwhile we could actually use MRMs or LRMs, or use energy-weapons WITH missile weapons.

An odd way to say you agree with me, but ok

[Omniseed]

FupDup, on 19 March 2019 - 01:54 PM, said:

To be fair double MRM20 requires more tonnage than one MRM40...but not double HP levels of extra tonnage.

And they get a variety of other positive balancing effects for it already.

[FupDup]

Omniseed, on 21 March 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

And they get a variety of other positive balancing effects for it already.

They get a wee bit faster cooldown and a lil' bit lower spread...not really worth it. Excluding the HP changes, the MRM20 is only good for combining with an MRM30 for a salvo of 50 if you can't afford the full MRM60.

[Omniseed]

Sixpack, on 21 March 2019 - 10:54 AM, said:

I disagree on the Ebon Jaguar part and so on in regards to SRMs.

Clan SRMs have bad spread, so you want to take a good few more to compensate. Usually you want to run with 6 SRM6 (artmis favoured and more srm's preferred). The Ebon Jaguar can not take more than 4 missile slots at any time and it lacks in proper support weaponry/free tonnage to punch threw and aim for crits like the Scorch or MadCat Mk II-2 can due to tonnage allowing to take lbx 20's.

At least those have been my experiances when trying out SRMs for the clan side.

Try SRM4x4 with 2xUAC5

[Omniseed]

Khobai, on 20 March 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

show me proof that SRMs/MRMs were so dominant they needed to be nerfed.

if you are going to call something fake news you need to back it up with supporting evidence.

the truth is SRMs/MRMs have always been below average weapons for several reasons. lack of range/velocity, bad damage spread, bad synergy when fired in combination with other weapons like lasers, utterly dumb ghost heat limits (why are SRM6s limited to 4? thats pathetic compared to ATMs), hitreg issues, etc...

so no. they really dont need to be countered harder by AMS. its almost like PGI is admitting they cant balance other weapons so they just want everyone to use the only weapon they consider balanced: lasers.

This is post-nerf. I still think they need their health fixed, especially the 40, but clearly they can still put in work.

[Ragedog4]

PGI, give MRMs and SRMs their health back. They were never overpowered, are skilled based due to no lock on, and take time to reach their target. Don't make them worse because someone brings AMS 4 or everyone brings AMS making them useless. That is just not fun at all.

I understand if you want a TOTAL of 10% of the non-locking missile fire to be reduced but a base 10% for those missiles, not the ability to knock out ALL missiles that are dead fire. Not cool.

*EDIT: I just had a triple ATM 12 launch at my quad AMS and before they even LEFT 50M FROM HIS MECH. He was 200m from me. That is way too broken. Not a fan. At that point it should only take out 50% of those amount of missiles. Not all 3 ATM 12s. And MRMs have less health!? Yikes.

Edited by Ragedog4, 22 March 2019 - 02:47 PM.

[FupDup]

Le bump!

In the April 16th, 2019 patch the missile health values are getting buffed in most cases. These new values will result in the following amounts of health per volley:

New missile health per volley calculations:

LRM5: 1.2 (6)
LRM10: 1.1 (11)
LRM15: 0.9 (13.5)
LRM20: 0.8 (16)

(S)SRM2: 1.0 (2)
(S)SRM4: 0.8 (3.2)
(S)SRM6: 0.6 (3.6)

MRM10: 0.6 (6)
MRM20: 0.5 (10)
MRM30: 0.4 (12)
MRM40: 0.3 (12)

ATM3: 1.6 (4.8)
ATM6: 1.4 (8.4)

A general trend here is that the step up from the smallest launcher to second smallest is really large (almost double), but the step up from the middle launchers to biggest launcher is pretty small or in the case of MRMs no step up at all. PGI is still relying too much on a "normalized" approach of going up or down in increments of 0.1 HP per missile instead of picking whatever values produce good results.

Giving more HP to SRMs and MRMs is okay but I'm skeptical about buffing Lurms and Ssurms. We'll see. At least they didn't buff the ATM9 or ATM12.

I'm updating the OP to reflect these new changes.

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2019 - 04:30 PM.

[Maddermax]

Slight buff might make a bit of difference in normal play, certainly the 50% buff to MRMs 40s will hopefully keep them a little more consistent. That said, the problem of huge swings in effectiveness because of lots or little AMS coverage on the opposing side remains an issue - but the patch will help a little at least.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 11 April 2019 - 04:18 PM, said:

A general trend here is that the step up from the smallest launcher to second smallest is really large (almost double), but the step up from the middle launchers to biggest launcher is pretty small or in the case of MRMs no step up at all. PGI is still relying too much on a "normalized" approach of going up or down in increments of 0.1 HP per missile instead of picking whatever values produce good results.

Giving more HP to SRMs and MRMs is okay but I'm skeptical about buffing Lurms and Ssurms. We'll see. At least they didn't buff the ATM9 or ATM12.

I'm updating the OP to reflect these new changes.

I'm okay with the concept, cause I'm tired of just the simple approach of moar tubes to compensate for the Iron-Dome, and this just ends up with an arms-race of having the most tubes to the detriment of the team, more so than a simple AMS.

I would have prefered larger increments with their normalization, of their spreadsheet-balancing, but I have yet to see what happens.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 11 April 2019 - 04:36 PM, said:

I'm okay with the concept, cause I'm tired of just the simple approach of moar tubes to compensate for the Iron-Dome, and this just ends up with an arms-race of having the most tubes to the detriment of the team, more so than a simple AMS.

I would have prefered larger increments with their normalization, of their spreadsheet-balancing, but I have yet to see what happens.

For the increments I think that the new LRM 10/15/20 look pretty good on paper in terms of having just enough HP difference without going overboard or underboard (11/13.5/16 respectively). Using those as the baseline I'd expect the LRM5 to have 8.5 health per volley (1.7 health per missile). That keeps the +2.5 volley health per launcher step consistent.

[Vellron2005]

Personally, I welcome the buff.. it needed to be done in a hotfix 1 day post patch if you ask me..

Keep in mind that MRM and SRM are fired from much much closer proximity than LRM (or its supposed to be, but new lock kinda makes it the same), and travels alot faster than LRM or ATM, so AMS has less time to down missiles..

Test it in-game and see if its ok or not..

I hope they follow up on this buff with a tweak that would make IDF LRM easier to lock, especially on ECM targets and targets above 300 m..

[Prototelis]

Massed AMS still really doesn't do **** against massed LRMs in a coordinated environment.

IDF locks are fine. Been doing it a lot in faction without dedicated spotters. Target under ECM? Switch to/wait for a different target or practice putting the circle in the square.

Edited by Prototelis, 12 April 2019 - 04:47 AM.

[death390]

IDF locks are NOT fine, in testing with probe and the skill nodes a DF lock on was about 2s at 400m ~2.5 800m, with ECM it basically added a full second. IDF however boy howdy, 4s 400m 5s 800m and added 1-1.5s when ECM was added. considering that is a full cooldown or two for other weapon systems it takes what feels like forever in a fast paced game that are often decided in 2-3 minutes.

[KuyaMorphine]

death390, on 13 April 2019 - 08:46 AM, said:

IDF locks are NOT fine, in testing with probe and the skill nodes a DF lock on was about 2s at 400m ~2.5 800m, with ECM it basically added a full second. IDF however boy howdy, 4s 400m 5s 800m and added 1-1.5s when ECM was added. considering that is a full cooldown or two for other weapon systems it takes what feels like forever in a fast paced game that are often decided in 2-3 minutes.

But then why take ECM?

[K O Z A K]

finally, some much needed lrm buffs. Since the ams patch I haven't been able to get a single 3k damage with an lrm boat, only 2ks. I think that's totally unacceptable, I should be able to get 3k damage with 1 mech without having to aim, position or expose myself to enemy fire, while forcing players on my team to eat damage that I would otherwise take and players on the enemy team to rage quit because they can't even shoot back at me. It's all good, those enemies are toxic direct fire elitists that deserve to be shat on from the sky with my endless supply of steel rain, I will spam the damage button until my mouse breaks. YES, RAIN ON THE TOXICS, I'M SO GOOD AT THIS GAME, THEY CAN'T EVEN SHOOT BACK, MUAHAHAHA

[Khobai]

Hazeclaw, on 13 April 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

finally, some much needed lrm buffs. Since the ams patch I haven't been able to get a single 3k damage with an lrm boat, only 2ks. I think that's totally unacceptable, I should be able to get 3k damage with 1 mech without having to aim, position or expose myself to enemy fire, while forcing players on my team to eat damage that I would otherwise take and players on the enemy team to rage quit because they can't even shoot back at me. It's all good, those enemies are toxic direct fire elitists that deserve to be shat on from the sky with my endless supply of steel rain, I will spam the damage button until my mouse breaks. YES, RAIN ON THE TOXICS, I'M SO GOOD AT THIS GAME, THEY CAN'T EVEN SHOOT BACK, MUAHAHAHA

nice hyperbole. LRMs were never that good though.

increasing LRM health by 0.1 will literally make no difference either

its simply what i call a "feel good" buff. where PGI doesnt know what theyre doing so they just did something irrelevant to make it look like theyre doing something to get some of the dumber people who think a 0.1 change matters to stop complaining.

LRMs still wont fill their intended role and will still be unplayably bad like they always were.


Furthermore youre blaming the parasitic nature of LRMs on players rather than PGI. Its entirely PGI's responsibility to make sure that spotters get rewarded properly for spotting for IDF. Its also PGI's fault that IDF was made way too easy to pull off (instead of requiring TAG/NARC like it should). Blame PGI not the players.

If people actually started blaming PGI instead of eachother, maybe PGI would be held accountable for screwing up the game instead of being let off the hook constantly because youre too busy blaming timmy for using autoaim weapons.

KuyaMorphine, on 13 April 2019 - 08:52 AM, said:

But then why take ECM?

ECM shouldnt grant stealth though. It never shouldve granted stealth. Its not what ECM does.

PGI needs to make ECM do what its supposed to do instead of whats its not supposed to do.

The problem is PGI made all these things do stuff theyre not supposed to do. Then they made even more things do stuff theyre not supposed to do to counter them. And now we just have a huge mess of things doing what theyre not supposed to do.

LRMs should not be able to accurately IDF. Or if accurate IDF is allowed it should require TAG/NARC.

ECM should not grant stealth. ECM should not stop missiles from locking on either. Instead they should give ECM some of its other abilities from tabletop like ghost mode which creates fake radar contacts. ECM is supposed to be a toolbox for disruption/misdirection its not supposed to be a super stealth bubble.

Edited by Khobai, 13 April 2019 - 01:12 PM.

[K O Z A K]

Nothing I said was hyperbolic. I've done 3k with lrm boats before the patch, and have only been doing 1.5k to 2.5k after the patch. Ams sure is OP, need moar buffs for lrms

I suppose it's pgis fault idf exists, that doesn't mean the way players abuse it relieves them of all responsibility

I agree lrms shouldn't be accurate in idf, and should require narc/tag, I also know pgi would never go for that because the lrm "specialists" would stop buying mechpacks, the very people you are trying to absolve of all responsibility are the ones preventing pgi from making the changes you suggest

[Mystere]

Hazeclaw, on 13 April 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

position or expose myself to enemy fire

Why do people keep on demanding that such things never exist? Someone needs to be exposed to enable IDF. Why is that never enough?

Oh, I forgot! IDF is The Devil Incarnate! It must be a religious thing.

Khobai, on 13 April 2019 - 12:54 PM, said:

LRMs still wont fill their intended role ...

Fighting against religious beliefs is next to futile.

Hazeclaw, on 13 April 2019 - 03:01 PM, said:

I suppose it's pgis fault idf exists ...

See what I mean?

Hazeclaw, on 13 April 2019 - 03:01 PM, said:

… and should require narc/tag ...

Oh! There just might still be hope for this particular soul.

Edited by Mystere, 13 April 2019 - 04:56 PM.

[K O Z A K]

Mystere, on 13 April 2019 - 04:50 PM, said:

See what I mean?

Khobai's words (paraphrased), not mine

I reluctantly agreed that essentially anything and everything in the game is PGIs fault I guess? Since they created the game? Not sure how that point is useful though