11 replies to this topic

[Vellron2005]

So, after reading many negative comments, and making some of my own, I've concluded that the LRM, AMS, ECM and lock-on changes definitely need a second look.

TBH I was half expecting PGI to come out with a hotfix for AMS or something, but since that didn't happen...

PGI, can we get you to take another look at the changes instituted in the last patch, and perhaps tone them down, tweak them and rework them?

AMS / missile health is clearly OP..

ECM and lock-on mechanics are clearly wonky..

Can we please have a second look at all this, and devise something that both LRM users and Direct Fire players will like?

Maybe create a poll for weather or not this last patch made the game better or worse?

[Dionnsai]

From my experience, direct fire missiles, AMS, srms and mrms are more or less fine. Direct lock lurms are still pretty solid unless the number of ams being used is far greater than the number of lurm launchers being fired at the target. Indeed, direct fired lurms are pretty fun now. The only people who are taking a serious hit are the guys hiding behind a hill while someone else gets locks for them...which I can't see many people caring too much about as that guy isn't sharing his armor anyway.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Beside the wonky direct/indirect switch i think ams and missiles are fine. maybe a tard more health for ATM but that's pretty much it.

[Major Malfunktion]

Apart from the crazy idea that the same missiles, launched from different launchers, have different health values... things seem pretty reasonable for SRMs, LRMs and ATMs.

As for MRMs, they might as well not exist if there is any semblance of AMS cover.

[Dionnsai]

Major Malfunktion, on 28 March 2019 - 05:02 AM, said:

Apart from the crazy idea that the same missiles, launched from different launchers, have different health values... things seem pretty reasonable for SRMs, LRMs and ATMs.

Yeah, that part is a little weird.

[Lotspeech]

Ams is fine! it is a good change, and rather than breaking 1000 damage everytime im in a lrm boat it only happens every couple of games. if your not doing good damage in your lrm boats its because your not positioning corectly to play around your counter, direct fire is much more effective against ams if you get into a good range. and ams is finaly viable when ATMs are involved. the only thing that might need a secound look is mrm health but honestly if you get to point blank range where mrms are most efective than your fine there as well.

Just learn to adapt. you cant expect to play the same way you always have and do better because of a major change.

Quote

So, after reading many negative comments

there are many positive comments as well so please dont pick and choose

Edited by kamichiwa343, 28 March 2019 - 05:54 AM.

[K O Z A K]

Pretty happy with the changes. This was the best balance patch in a very long time imo.

They really need to fix ams going through terrain though

[K O Z A K]

kamichiwa343, on 28 March 2019 - 05:52 AM, said:

there are many positive comments as well so please dont pick and choose

Someone showed him how to block players in forum profile so he probably blocked anyone who disagrees with him for being "toxic". Now he can probably only see posts from the "lrm specialists". Must be a pretty quiet echo chamber

[Sjorpha]

Quite separately from the issue of weapon strength, I think it's a problem if weapons are changed in such a way that they're no longer good in the role they were designed for in BT.

MRMs (MEDIUM Range Missiles) should be good at midrange and LRMs (LONG Range Missiles) should be good at long range.

It's really weird to argue that the balancing is fine because those weapons are now better at short ranges, they are not short range weapons and there are other missiles (Spoiler alert they are called: SHORT Range Missiles) that are designed for short range.

So now the correct way to play all missiles is at short range and that is somehow an improvement? Nonsense, each type of missile should be at their optimal in the range their name implies so that it makes sense to make a SRM mech for short range, a MRM mech for midrange and a LRM mech for long range.

Another way to put it is that SRMs should be trading blows with small lasers and AC20s, MRMs should compete with ER mediums and AC5-10, and LRMs should be an alternative to ERLLs and Gauss. Not this "all missiles are actually SRMs" nonsense that these changes are pushing them towards.

All the high-horse hate against indirect fire is some scrubthink nonsense too, if a weapon has an IDF capability it should be good enough in that function to be a viable option when used that way as well as with direct LoS.

[Lotspeech]

Sjorpha, on 28 March 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

All the high-horse hate against indirect fire is some scrubthink nonsense too, if a weapon has an IDF capability it should be good enough in that function to be a viable option when used that way as well as with direct LoS.

it is viable in Indirect mode. you just have to be a little bit closer to shoot though the ams. if ams/other counters didnt exist than lrms would be god teir.

also, this game isnt battletech. its mechwarrior. yes it is in the battletech universe but in no way will balance carry over from tabletop or strategy games. any weapon that can shoot you through a wall at max range is inherently unbalanced. that why there are so many counters. the argument here is that you can outplay the counters by simple moving to a range where they are not as effective which even the playing feild for other play styles such as brawling, creating balance. you can still shoot your lrms at max range, they just should be able to do very much against their counters at that point

in no world will lrms ever be more effective than pinpoint damage and no heat from a Gauss riffle in a strait up fight. Gauss requires a lot more tonnage and should not be on par with cheap tonnage lrms

Edited by kamichiwa343, 28 March 2019 - 08:01 AM.

[John Bronco]

The changes are definitely a net positive for the game, though I would support a moderate buff to SRM and MRM missile health.

[Ken Harkin]

Step 1. Don't read the forums. They are overwhelmed with theory-crafting and emotional rhetoric.

Step 2. Play the game, try the different weapons.

Step 3. Repeat Step 2, try different tactics.

Seriously, the changes are working well in my opinion. My LRM focused mechs work better than before when obtaining LOS and worse when firing indirectly. If I see AMS eating my volleys alive I shift to another target outside the heavy AMS coverage just like when in the old indirect fire day I shifted fire when I saw missiles not connecting.

Streak SRMs lock quickly with LOS and are close enough generally to have volleys make it through AMS. Regular SRMs and MRMs are working for me pretty much as before.

AMS is more effective when I mount it, which is more often given its effectiveness. It does not provide immunity but coupled with using cover from indirect fire and face punching any LRM boat getting LOS it is worth having along.

All of that is based on experience, not reading threads.