#41
Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:21 AM
#42
Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:29 AM
#43
Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:52 AM
#44
Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:28 AM
Note: Chain firing had been more effective than alpha firing the SSRMs before the recent patch, I have not used them since the last patch.
Edited by Shawgrin, 07 November 2012 - 11:32 AM.
#45
Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:35 AM
#46
Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:11 PM
I am sorry but this makes no sense at all. I have no problem with streaks not hitting dead ct so easily but flying past a stationary mech and hitting the hill instead is far from how it should be.
I hope this issue will be addressed before next patch is released.
*Damn auto correct strikes again in subject title
Edited by Redback, 07 November 2012 - 03:13 PM.
#47
Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:43 PM
Bad thing is:
It happens not often when hunting a light fast mech in my commando ( I miss from time to time, when the enemies zigzag or run in circles, but that is ok ) no it happens most times versus a big fat atlas or catapult.
But it can be worse...
Today -> My Commando 2xMLaser 1xSSRM2 Launcher found a enemy big fat ATLAS on a hill standing, I waited for the lock, enemy was locked at 103m, I shoot, both missiles missed.
Could not believe what I saw! One missile went right of him, the other missile left of him! All locked SSRM Missiles missed.
Hope you find the bug fast.
Best wishes
Redbull102
Edited by Redbull102, 07 November 2012 - 04:52 PM.
#48
Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:51 PM
#49
Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:46 PM
#50
Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:58 PM
#51
Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:12 PM
I run a Centurion (CN9-A) with three streaks on chain fire. I've watched all six missiles miss. Not very often, mostly one or two will miss at most, but when they all miss I feel somewhat cheated. I'm okay with the missiles hitting different parts of the mech I'm fighting. I can even accept that they'll miss from time to time because [circumstances], but at the rate they're missing it's bull[REDACTED].
I swear, I need to hug my enemy if I want all of them to reliably hit
#52
Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:53 PM
At like less then 10M maybe id have a 75% to 100% miss chance it seems.... some even went through the mech to blow up on what ever it would hit on the other side......
Something is wrong.
Hitting more then 1 part of the mech is pretty much standard and its what i expect....
#53
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:50 PM
Cynwulf, on 06 November 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:
If you want to aim them, use srms instead.
Interesting the SSRM fix snuck in unannounced
Edited by Asmosis, 07 November 2012 - 08:50 PM.
#54
Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:12 AM
so im fine with this and consider to play my jenner again with 2*4srm inculding an artemis
Anyway - pls fix the lag problem, i started to use streaks because its the only possibility to bring down fast light mechs!
#55
Posted 08 November 2012 - 03:33 AM
I absolutely loved the game before the patch, now I think I'll hold off on playing until the next patch to see if things improve.
#56
Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:33 AM
just get me right. i do not say that ssrm must have 100% hit chance. but now missiles spread for ssrm on close range are like... 80% of entire screen.
yes, ssrm must randomely choose any part of target and try to hit it. but HOW can it miss, if target put its face in front of my launcher?
PLEASE! FIX IT ASAP!
p.s. as an idea. how about adding some range, where ssrm missiles goes more like in straight line and then start to maneuver toward some part on target mech. for example first 5-10 meter from launcher missiles goes straight forward with a minimal deviation, next 20-30 meter it use 50% of maximum ability to maneuver, and the rest part it use full ability to maneuver? how about that idea? it will leave reasonable limit to miss, but will fix stupid miss, when target is right at you face, but 1 missiles hit the ground and second one flight to the space.
Edited by Ruronin, 08 November 2012 - 05:47 AM.
#57
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:28 AM
just wondered, did you nerf the ssrms...?
seems they have started to be less accurate.
#58
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:33 AM
#59
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:40 AM
#60
Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:04 AM
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users