So again, when minimum lock time has been more then tripled, and the maximum lock time has been way more then tripled, and what matters the most when getting a direct lock in plain sight is how little time it takes to get a lock... it's safe to say that direct LOS locks have become ~3 times more dangerous then before.
And while indirect locks can also take ~3 times longer then before, I'll take 3 times longer over 3 times more dangerous.
As for low arc vs high arc, I actually use LRMs... When I chain fire LRMs and the first volley uses the low arc while the second volley uses the high arc 0.5s later, what typically happens is that the target takes a step back behind the hill he's using as cover, the fast low arc volley rushes straight into that hill, and the high arc volley slowly flies over that hill ~1 second later and lands right into the target instead.
As far as actual use goes, there is just about no case where the low arc volley is fast enough to hit the target but the high arc is too slow too hit it too : It's either both volleys hit, or the low arc doesn't hit because it goes in first but only to crash into the ground cover instead of hitting the target.
That's why LRM users know it's a nerf for a fact from first-hand experience, while non-LRM users only imagine it's a buff by mistake , thinking that reducing the amount of LRMs being fired by ~tripling the lock time, and making more of the ones that are fired crash into the ground, is some kind of magical buff. Well no it isn't.
When I use LRMs I spend half my time getting a direct lock and then fetching an indirect lock so I can benefit from the high arc before firing them, and the other half getting an unwanted low arc and cursing it as my LRMs crash right into direct sight cover (or my teammate's back) because of that low arc nerf.
Remember what PGI did the first time they nerfed ATMs (in 2018 ?) : They lowered the ATM's firing arc, and back then they properly called lowering that firing arc a nerf, not a magical buff, because that's what lowering an arc is, it's a nerf.
And again the biggest nerf isn't that reduced arc, but the 100% lock time bonus nerf of both TAG and ECM, that makes the difference between a balanced patch (give and take), and an outright nerf (take a lot more then you give back).
And while you can get a hundred notorious LRM "haters" to say they believe that nerf was a buff : You won't get any notorious LRM "user" calling that mix of more nerf then buff, anything else but the nerf that is was.
The (direct sight) LRMs may fly faster, but less are fired because of the big lock time nerf, and those that are fired hit less because of the low arc nerf. So when both your fire rate and hit rate have been dropped by a patch, that's the proper definition of a nerf, and even a double nerf, no matter what the new LRM speed is.
And when we ask PGI to let us choose the "right" LRM arc ourselves, PGI won't let us : PGI not giving us the option to "nerf" ourselves with a manual high LRM arc, has more to do with PGI not wanting to let us "un-nerf" ourselves by letting us choose the high arc that we need and want to use 90% of the time direct LOS or not.
"oh but Dexter, your LRMs fly faster now, so it doesn't matter if you shoot less and what you do shoot misses more, because LRMs fly like 20 times faster now, so it's a buff" : Yea, dream on...
Edited by Humble Dexter, 21 January 2020 - 08:51 PM.