Navid A1, on 09 April 2021 - 11:13 AM, said:
Our standard would lead to all lock-ons getting significant nerfs based on how they are now.
We held off on those needed nerfs by keeping new player experience in mind.
When you say you are trying to hold us to our own standard, you have to explain how we are violating it in the first place.
Lock-ons really don't compete directly (pun intended) with other base-line weapons that we've used. They function in a separate category.
If the plan is to make all weapons more competitive against one another, why put lock-ons into an entirely separate category, supposedly only for "the new player experience"?
It was only after several patches and a few larger reworks of the locking and tracking mechanisms that lock on weapons were no longer an utter joke, incapable of holding their own as viable weapon systems. Now the plan is to do what, exactly? Return LRMs to their 2015-2016 incarnation where they were only ever rarely used to annoy the supposedly "advanced" players or by newer players who had not yet seen how ineffective the weapon systems were?
Anomalolacris is correct that you, and several other members of this supposed "cauldron" group seem to have double standards when it comes to certain weapons, not holding them to the same standard to make them viable weapons.
Navid A1, on 09 April 2021 - 11:13 AM, said:
Explaining how LRMs function doesn't make them any less risk- or effort-free... you don't do the tracking... the game does. Most of the time, you don't even need to reposition, or see the enemy... you just lob cancer into the sky, and unless there is a corsair or two in the game, the enemy is really going to have a bad time.
If target lock sharing wasn't a thing in MWO, then you would have been 100% right. But target sharing is a thing, and LRMs are risk- and effort-free.
Then you are willfully ignoring their current mechanics. A player using said weapon system
has to track their target for the entire flight of the missiles. Which is around 4 seconds at 900 meters. Even if a friendly mech or UAV is providing a constant secondary lock through which to fire. And that is excluding the prohibitively long indirect lock times. But if those aren't available, they have to do it themselves, getting closer and closer in order to have any consistency. So if you know this, how can you still state they're completely risk or effort free? Simply because they
have to use indirect fire as much as possible because they can't compete against other weapons in direct fire competitions?
If you are this highly biased against a weapon system then I would highly suggest you get yourself acquainted with them more thoroughly. As it is, your biased outlook (and if your comments are to be believed the biased outlook of many of your fellow "cauldron" members) towards these weapon systems is not geared towards making the game more fun, balanced or competitive for everyone. Just towards those who have a specific outlook of what is "the right way to play."
Navid A1, on 09 April 2021 - 11:13 AM, said:
Regarding ATMs, I'd suggest you do a test with a friend before listing theoretical results. Try to find similar LBX boats that can can have the same damage output, high speed, and jumpjets.
So you're referring to what mech, specifically? Because even a Mad Cat MkII with quad ATM12s generally has one jump jet, and runs at around 60-62 kph.
It takes 6 volleys from a quad LB10X assault mech to kill a testing grounds AS7-D through the center torso at 200 meters. That is roughly 13.5 seconds.
It takes 3 volleys for a quad ATM12 assault mech to kill that same testing grounds AS7-D through the center torso at 200 meters. That takes roughly 10 seconds in terms of pure weapon cooldowns. That is still around 3 full volleys of 4x ATM12's.
As demonstrated, in close quarter ranges, where the ATM12 is supposed to shine, it can edge out the inner sphere quad LB10X mech in terms of time to kill. But it does no one-shot assault, no matter how much you hyperbole their lethality.
Edited by Runecarver, 09 April 2021 - 12:24 PM.
13
