196 replies to this topic

[Alvar Von Kenesthor]

LURMz R GUD
AMS R BAAAD

[Darkstrand]

What other Mechwarrior/Commander game ever used LRM with intercontinental ballistic missile trajectory? I remember them as the arc they use now with direct fire.

Also how does IDF even work without active sensors on our mechs?

[Prototelis]

Darkstrand, on 21 March 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

Also how does IDF even work without active sensors on our mechs?

Everyone gets C3 so there isn't a mechlab tax on functioning radar.

[Xannatharr]

Kubernetes, on 20 March 2019 - 10:30 AM, said:

Dude, Yondu, wtf are you doing to stay at Tier 4?

Yondu is Tier 4 trash.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

Xannatharr, on 21 March 2019 - 09:35 AM, said:

Yondu is Tier 4 trash.

I heard he does QP exclusively nowadays, being a backstander 500mtrs even behind his own backstanders. supporting the lurmers from the backfield. right, yondu?

[MischiefSC]

Nobody is against LRMs being used.

They just want them to require some skill to get results, like everything else and not reward being a worthless sack of **** in the back.

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 21 March 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

Nobody is against LRMs being used.

They just want them to require some skill to get results, like everything else and not reward being a worthless sack of **** in the back.

Frankly, I don’t even care if they are used by and are rewarding to the worthless sack of **** in the back. But if PGI finds it necessary to change game mechanics because of the prevelance of such sacks of ****, why must they also change/punish other playstyles, builds and weapons (brawling with or even merely using SRMs and MRMs, ATMs, etc.)? That is what irritates me with these latest changes. X is a problem according to the Devs; so be it. Fine, change how X performs to address your concerns. But they never can limit themselves to that, and so once again we get changes to X (LRMs), but also Y (AMS), and Z (SRMs) and A (MRMs) and B (ATMs), etc. Another ****ing day ing this era of never ending balance passes.

[MischiefSC]

Bud Crue, on 21 March 2019 - 10:44 AM, said:

Frankly, I don’t even care if they are used by and are rewarding to the worthless sack of **** in the back. But if PGI finds it necessary to change game mechanics because of the prevelance of such sacks of ****, why must they also change/punish other playstyles, builds and weapons (brawling with or even merely using SRMs and MRMs, ATMs, etc.)? That is what irritates me with these latest changes. X is a problem according to the Devs; so be it. Fine, change how X performs to address your concerns. But they never can limit themselves to that, and so once again we get changes to X (LRMs), but also Y (AMS), and Z (SRMs) and A (MRMs) and B (ATMs), etc. Another ****ing day ing this era of never ending balance passes.

Balance is always a moving target because you want to constantly refresh mechanics to keep it from getting stale.

However I agree on missile health nerfs being too much.

[JediPanther]

Bud Crue, on 21 March 2019 - 10:44 AM, said:

Frankly, I don’t even care if they are used by and are rewarding to the worthless sack of **** in the back. But if PGI finds it necessary to change game mechanics because of the prevelance of such sacks of ****, why must they also change/punish other playstyles, builds and weapons (brawling with or even merely using SRMs and MRMs, ATMs, etc.)? That is what irritates me with these latest changes. X is a problem according to the Devs; so be it. Fine, change how X performs to address your concerns. But they never can limit themselves to that, and so once again we get changes to X (LRMs), but also Y (AMS), and Z (SRMs) and A (MRMs) and B (ATMs), etc. Another ****ing day ing this era of never ending balance passes.

[redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 10 May 2019 - 10:26 AM.
nonconstructive/discussing moderation/insults

[FupDup]

I guess one side-effect of the health nerfage is that Mech Mortars would have more of a niche. Battletech classifies them as missile weapons, and their only advantage over Lurms in BT is that they were entirely immune to AMS (I assume this is because AMS tries to detect heat signatures from missile exhaust but mortar shells lack that).

They would also likely be a "skill" based missile system that requires manual aim and leading to hit targets rather than locking on. They could be used to indirect fire by aiming your shots high such that they would arch over cover, but you'd have to use your judgement to figure out just how high you need to aim the shot to make it go where you want it to go (and simultaneously leading your shot in the horizontal plane if the target is moving). Basically like indirect firing a grenade launcher or grenade from a typical FPS game.

[Kalimaster]

AMS has become rather powerful

As for Mech now with ECM vs LRM's, these Mechs are now super Mechs when it comes to indirect LRM fire, as are those protected by ECM

Mechs which have not unlocked any or only a few slots are at a severe disadvantage, even in the midst of other Mechs.

Best solution. Overall buffs.
1. Remove Nerfs from Indirect LRM fire
2. Increase the rate of fire for Gauss (slightly)
3. Reduce heat for IS and Clan ER lasers

Additional Aspect
Create Bolt Ons with some health and game play effects
A. Air Raid Siren (creates a sound when missiles are fired at you to warn nearby Mechs)
B. Devices to Increase or boost sensor output
C. Single Use (LBX based) anti missile systems
D. Light Duty retrofitted armor that falls away after taking only small amounts of damage (5-10 points)

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 21 March 2019 - 10:51 AM, said:

Balance is always a moving target because you want to constantly refresh mechanics to keep it from getting stale.

I think I am just hung up on the word balance. To me that suggests that such constant refreshing would lead to making crap mechs more viable or shifting the meta or keeping things from actually getting stale, but that isn’t what PGI does, and with the exception of when civil war tech was introduced they never have. This patch may have changed up LRMs to keep them from getting stale, but it also ensures that a lot of already side-lined mechs and builds have even less incentive to be played. That isn’t “balance” by any definition.

[Mystere]

Bush Hopper, on 21 March 2019 - 12:13 AM, said:

I think the discussion shouldn't focus on LRMs as a whole but on the different parts.

I think the most hated part of LRMs is the indirect fire ability. And quite honestly, it sucks that you can easily support a mech in trouble across half the map with obstacles between you and the target because every mech has a free C3 computer. That shouldn't be possible without stuff like TAG, UAVs or NARC.
If that restriction were there, I doubt anyone would be bothered if LRMs were buffed. Also, light mechs / fast mechs suddenly had a role.

Given the player base, I would be shocked, really absolutely shocked, if the crying about LRMs abated much after those restrictions.

[Scout Derek]

Alvar Von Kenesthor, on 21 March 2019 - 08:59 AM, said:

LURMz R GUD
AMS R BAAAD

I'm sorry to keep posting this but it's been very relevant these days;

[Mystere]

Just as a point of argument, because this seems to be lost on a whole lot of people, why should LONG range missiles be most effective at short range?

Change the mechanics (e.g. require TAG, NARC, and/or UAVs -- stack the effects too) if you must, but make them deadly at LONG range. Otherwise, what's their point?

[Prototelis]

Heres the point you're missing; Why should a weapon you don't have to aim that as a primary function creates almost no risk of damage to the user have better sustained DPS than long range weapons you do have to aim and expose to use?

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 21 March 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

Nobody is against LRMs being used. They just want them to require some skill to get results, like everything else and not reward being a worthless sack of **** in the back.

You need to play closer attention then because such denizens do exist.

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 12:47 PM, said:

Heres the point you're missing; Why should a weapon you don't have to aim that as a primary function creates almost no risk of damage to the user have better sustained DPS than long range weapons you do have to aim and expose to use?

Where did I say no one has to aim?

Where did I also mention "better sustained DPS"?

Go on. Show me.

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2019 - 01:00 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 21 March 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

Nobody is against LRMs being used.

They just want them to require some skill to get results, like everything else and not reward being a worthless sack of **** in the back.

Honestly though, that DF-IDF difference of performance is enough for me. LRMs being any harder to use right now defeats the point of a homing weapon.

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 12:47 PM, said:

Heres the point you're missing; Why should a weapon you don't have to aim that as a primary function creates almost no risk of damage to the user have better sustained DPS than long range weapons you do have to aim and expose to use?

Because it's bad at it.

Now if it was good at it, it's a different story. Honestly though, I'd like to make LRMs a bit more reliable, but have the worst DPS. Now that would make sense.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 March 2019 - 01:14 PM.

[Trevor Devalis]

Maybe they should just change all mechanics. Lock on with all weapons, or at least tone with weapons that are sighted on an enemy, dumb fire still enabled. But if you're not aiming at them, your weapon tracking is off and pinpoint convergence is no longer an issue.
Or, increase LRM velocity, no more lock ins and act as ATMs with a lot longer range. Hit a button for IDF, and you see a trajectory arc. Tag and narc will act as a magnet so missiles that are within 10 meters of the target on a flight path head towards the painted target.

There, now everything is on an equal playing field. Still skill involved, or not, and everyone wins. Or loses.

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 12:57 PM, said:

Where did I say no one has to aim?

Where did I also mention "better sustained DPS"?

Go on. Show me.

You didn't. Which is why I identified it as "the point you are missing."