196 replies to this topic

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 12:43 PM, said:

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?

The thing is, "Long range" and "LONG" range doesn't translate well between tabletop and a fps. In tabletop (And "lore") they are "dumb"fire weapons that are targeted at a spot on the map, with a lot of the missiles missing because of individual hit chances etc, sort of like artillery in WoT. Its true they did have a "lock on" function to some extent, but they were limited to when the fhe platform had C3 and the target was being painted by a TAG/NARC or when using specialized munition like "Listen-kill", Heat seeking, "Follow the Leader", or Anti-Rad (plus one missile type that could be dumbfired then lock on to a target from a TAG spotter without the use of C3).

Also, the LRM was a shorter range weapon than the AC/2, while barely beating out the 'optimal' range of the AC/5.

Edited by Athom83, 21 March 2019 - 01:54 PM.

[Mystere]

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

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

Well, in that case:

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2019 - 03:07 PM.

[Mystere]

Athom83, on 21 March 2019 - 01:53 PM, said:

The thing is, "Long range" and "LONG" range doesn't translate well between tabletop and a fps. In tabletop (And "lore") they are "dumb"fire weapons that are targeted at a spot on the map, with a lot of the missiles missing because of individual hit chances etc, sort of like artillery in WoT. Its true they did have a "lock on" function to some extent, but they were limited to when the fhe platform had C3 and the target was being painted by a TAG/NARC or when using specialized munition like "Listen-kill", Heat seeking, "Follow the Leader", or Anti-Rad (plus one missile type that could be dumbfired then lock on to a target from a TAG spotter without the use of C3).

As I said:

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 12:43 PM, said:

Change the mechanics (e.g. require TAG, NARC, and/or UAVs -- stack the effects too) if you must...

[The6thMessenger]

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 03:10 PM, said:

As I said:

Yeah, I'm advocating for NARC-TAG-UAV only IDF right now.

[Variant1]

LRMs arent useless and bought time IDF got some heavy handed nerfs. However after some playtime i feel like lrms got an overall buff. The only problem right now is ams since its nullifying all missile weapons systems. Either missile health value needs to get reworked or the ams system itself needs to get reworked. Like ams should only destroy a % of missiles or something of each volley rather than the entire volley.



The lrm change feels good, makes lrms more dynamic.



lrms can now fight under the tunnel in crimson straight



AMS is incosistent it either destroys all missiles or it doesnt making some situations where a lrm boats wrecks you from so far away. We couldnt push tunnel since the enemy took it and we lost an assault early on



you can now shoot under the hpg satelite dish. Its pretty scary to deal with and you can fight in the basement with lrms more effeciently

My only complaint is potatos can still potato easily while DF struggles vs ams. DF needs to have the original lock on box in order to twist and fire more easier as well as more missile hp to deal with ams.

Only thing right now that needs to happen is AMS needs to get reworked

Edited by Variant1, 21 March 2019 - 03:29 PM.

[Prototelis]

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

Well, in that case

Your point is meaningless. Lrms had better sustained dps than most other long range weapons in the game after being buffed last year.

[MrMilkshake]

Lurms Lurms the musical fruit
The more you suck
The more you shoot.

[Angel of Annihilation]

I generally speaking don't use LRMs as a primary weapon system but do on occasion load them out on a mixed build. This of course means my LRM loadouts tend to be quite light compared to those who boat them. I preface with this because I am not experiencing quite as many issues with AMS as people are complaining about because for the most part, I am getting them through to the enemy mechs just fine. I guess I should also add that my mixed loadout LRM builds are designed for at least 1/2 to 2/3 my firepower come from direct damage weapons so unlike your traditional LRM boater, I am usually operating in the 2nd line at maybe 250m from the enemy so in my case, I am very much able to take full advantage of the direct fire changes to LRMs.

So I guess my question is, does the problem stem from the AMS buffs or does it stem from the fact people are still tying to use LRMs primarily as an indirect fire weapon?

[The6thMessenger]

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

Your point is meaningless. Lrms had better sustained dps than most other long range weapons in the game after being buffed last year.

Okay, sure, lets meet you half way. What if we made LRMs Alpha-Centric than DPS Centric? In fact, lets lower the effectiveness of both ATM and LRMs in terms of DPS.

And by that, I mean do these:
> Make LRM CD to 9.2/8.6/8/7s (from 4.6/4.3/4.0/3.5s) which would halve their current DPS.
> Make homing-weapons Fire-and-Forget (note that they still aren't bone-seeking or have high tracking-strength).
> Increase cone from 25-degree to 35-degree, (note that original was 45-degree).
> ATM damage from 3/2/1 to 2.4/2.0/1.6 with no minimum-range, + fire-and-forget. (Still no bone-tracking.)
> ATM CD from 5s, to 10/9/8/7s.

Point of the change is that they would be better at landing ensured damage -- and that would be their niche, but they won't be doing it as often which results in having poorer damage over the course of the match. They would be good at long-range, but AC2 and ERPPC would have the edge on Precison and on having better dps.

Note that the Streaks at this point would have better DPS than ATM, which differentiates it, and the bone-tracking of SSRMs would still mean that it's better at light-hunting even when ATMs have no minimum range.

Angel of Annihilation, on 21 March 2019 - 03:50 PM, said:

So I guess my question is, does the problem stem from the AMS buffs or does it stem from the fact people are still tying to use LRMs primarily as an indirect fire weapon?

Even MRMs and SRMs are heavily affected by the AMS.

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 03:10 PM, said:

As I said:

But again, that doesn't translate well from what "its supposed to be" into a fun/interesting mechanic in an FPS (see how Arty is seen as by a majority of WoT players). Outside of faction play hardly anyone will be spending their time scouting and holding tag or spending the tonnage on a Narc. Its just so exceedingly rare that you find people doing that (when there aren't events going on) that realistically they couldn't do that change without even more outcry than we're seeing now.

[Prototelis]

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2019 - 03:57 PM, said:

Okay, sure, lets meet you half way. What if we made LRMs Alpha-Centric than DPS Centric? In fact, lets lower the effectiveness of both ATM and LRMs in terms of DPS.

I am not sure what you are responding to, or what that that giant bowl of word salad has to do with anything we're debating.

After their buffs last year LRMS had better DPS than other long range weapons, they were already and still are deadly at long range. LRM volleys absolutely were "alpha centric" large tube count volleys were and still are king. Even with the spread you can only get hit with 80 damage so many times before you're nuked.

So I'll reiterate, why should a long range weapon you do not have to aim have better DPS than the ones you do have to aim on top of risking exposure.

Edited by Prototelis, 21 March 2019 - 04:24 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

I am not sure what you are responding to, or what that that giant bowl of word salad has to do with anything we're debating.

I wasn't debating. Funny, because in my last altercations with you, you do have a difficulty in understanding people's position.

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

After their buffs last year LRMS had better DPS than other long range weapons, they were already and still are deadly at long range. LRM volleys absolutely were "alpha centric" large tube count volleys were and still are king. Even with the spread you can only get hit with 80 damage so many times before you're nuked.

Well, it's still being better at DPS right? By alpha-centric, means it's best for the alphas, for good volley placement. It's like Gauss, it's best at putting damage out there, but it would lose out on DPS vs AC20. That distinction.

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

So I'll reiterate, why should a long range weapon you do not have to aim have better DPS than the ones you do have to aim on top of risking exposure.

Again, because it's bad at it.

That being said, again, I am extending to you a compromise. Make LRMs worst at DPS, but does ensured damage.

[Prototelis]

His position was that the "long" in long range missile is meaningless (950 meter max range is like 3 times longer than SRMS) and that they weren't deadly at long ranges. They absolutely were and absolutely still are as long as what you're trying to shoot doesn't have or isn't near AMS. That isn't subjective. I know you have a problem telling the difference.

Edit; for clarity, because you shifted the goal post FOR NO REASON; My counter point to those claims; Why should a weapon that does not have to be aimed and which when in use poses no risk to the user have better sustained DPS than weapons that have to be aimed and require risk of exposure?

Edited by Prototelis, 21 March 2019 - 05:13 PM.

[Mystere]

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

Your point is meaningless. Lrms had better sustained dps than most other long range weapons in the game after being buffed last year.

Once again: <whoosh>

The6thMessenger, on 21 March 2019 - 03:57 PM, said:

Okay, sure, lets meet you half way. What if we made LRMs Alpha-Centric than DPS Centric? ...

At least someone is getting warmer.

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 05:10 PM, said:

Why should a weapon that does not have to be aimed and which when in use poses no risk to the user have better sustained DPS than weapons that have to be aimed and require risk of exposure?

Requiring TAG from the LRM-carrier to make the weapon deadly/(near) pinpoint at its entire operational range will not require aming and risk of exposure?

Stacking TAG with NARCs and/or UAVs should make the weapon hurt even more, with the more the merrier. <maniacal >

Apply the same for other missile weapons if so desired. <even more maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2019 - 06:57 PM.

[Prototelis]

Once again, that doesn't imply ANY RISK TO THE USER, which was the impetus of these changes.

You obviously haven't played with or against the weapon system in an organized setting.

I'll make it really simple;

leech lock bad. lurm alredy stronk after last year buff. free c3 good. mechlab tax for functional radar bad

Edited by Prototelis, 21 March 2019 - 07:39 PM.

[Mystere]

Prototelis, on 21 March 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

Once again, that doesn't imply ANY RISK TO THE USER, which was the impetus of these changes.

You obviously haven't played with or against the weapon system in an organized setting.

I'll make it really simple;

leech lock bad. lurm alredy stronk after last year buff. free c3 good. mechlab tax for functional radar bad

And once again: <whoosh>

Mystere, on 21 March 2019 - 06:54 PM, said:

Requiring TAG from the LRM-carrier to make the weapon deadly/(near) pinpoint at its entire operational range ...

is a change that requires aiming, does not rely or leech locks, and makes LRMs deadly at its entire operational range -- the end goal I am seeking.

As for the weapon being "alredy stronk", how many MWOWC teams successfully fielded LRMs?

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2019 - 08:05 PM.