121 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

^^ Title.

In response to the many complains that LRMs are OP, what do you think would fix them?

Would a nerf of 25% of their damage fix LRMs in their current form?

Keep in mind that once ECM is in, we might stop thinking LRMs are OP.

Edited by Sybreed, 07 November 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[Krivvan]

Honestly I'd say something like 1.8 first, then maybe 1.6. 1.5 is a gigantic jump for LRMs because of the way they stack.

[Cel]

It was fine at 1.6 damage before. 1.5 would just make them kick a fit like babies.

Krivvan, on 07 November 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Honestly I'd say something like 1.8 first, then maybe 1.6. 1.5 is a gigantic jump for LRMs because of the way they stack.

They've already tested all those values.

[Sybreed]

Krivvan, on 07 November 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Honestly I'd say something like 1.8 first, then maybe 1.6. 1.5 is a gigantic jump for LRMs because of the way they stack.

Correct, it's a value that we used during closed BETA, but LRMs felt very lackluster back then.

[Hubis]

I actually would rather they increased the default spread of LRMs (especially in light of Artemis) rather than nerf the damage. Right now, LRMs seem to have a fixed spread regardless of target range; I think it would be a lot better if the spread increased from 1x at min-range to something like 6x at max-range (maybe 4x with Artemis, 2x with Artemis + TAG).

[Purlana]

Sybreed, on 07 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Correct, it's a value that we used during closed BETA, but LRMs felt very lackluster back then.

But with the tighter grouping and higher flight path due to the new upgrades who knows?

Edited by Purlana, 07 November 2012 - 08:32 AM.

[Orzorn]

I'd argue to return the flight path to how it was before (with or WITHOUT artemis. It should not adjust the flight path).

Additionally, artemis is not supposed to work with indirect fire. Fix that.

So now the tighter clusters only work with direct fire and they hit the torso more than the head.

We can go from there. However, I think a reduction to 1.8 damage per missile would be a step in the right direction, considering what TAG-locked missiles are capable of (insane damage to a single point).

[Cel]

Hubis, on 07 November 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

I actually would rather they increased the default spread of LRMs (especially in light of Artemis) rather than nerf the damage. Right now, LRMs seem to have a fixed spread regardless of target range; I think it would be a lot better if the spread increased from 1x at min-range to something like 6x at max-range (maybe 4x with Artemis, 2x with Artemis + TAG).

1.6 felt balanced and still annoying to get shot at, in short - it suppressed. That was the whole point of LRM, a support weapon. Back then the spread and angle were not ridiculous and the damage was still good.

We're talking LRM20 being 32 damage as opposed to 40 (now). I started out playing a stupid LRM boat and I would get 200-400 per match, which is pretty good for someone who's meant to be support.

Right now LRM don't care about support, I can't tell you how many games I've played where the LRM boats have tunnel vision and just shoot whoever they want instead of enemies that are flanking, or someone who's in need of help. They just don't care, they are the damage dealers. Every LRM boat thinks they are a "carry" now.

[Viper69]

I want them back to 1 damage. Along with srms back to 2. Every other weapon is TT value.

[Hellcat420]

they need something. lol my first match ever in mwo, spam lrm's(without artemis) get 3 kills easy.

[Scratx]

No, because the problem is not the damage they inflict per hit.

[Khobai]

25% is too much of a nerf. When LRMs were at 1.6 damage they were largely considered useless. I think 1.7 or 1.8 is just about right for LRMs.

[Orzorn]

Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

I want them back to 1 damage. Along with srms back to 2. Every other weapon is TT value.

I think the reason 1 damage doesn't work as well in real time is the way spread and movement affect the damage of these weapons. 1 damage, along with doubled armor, doesn't go a very long way when spread across the entire mech. Back when LRMs were 650 meter, 1 damage-per-missile weapons, they were pretty lackluster.

[Havyek]

The problem I have is using 1 system to "nerf" another system.

As it sits now, Artemis IV makes LRMs OP. No Artemis IV does not.
Requiring ECM to negate Aretemis IV doesn't make sense to me, a better fix would be to have Artemis IV improve the grouping of LRMs by a certain percentage and SRMs of a certain percentage.
Art IV should cause damage increase of maybe %20 over standard. I'd like to see ECM negate Art IV and maybe even hurt LRM damage by an additional 10%.

This would give both Arty IV and ECM useful roles, without making either REQUIRED.

[Khobai]

Quote

I want them back to 1 damage. Along with srms back to 2. Every other weapon is TT value.

Nope 1 damage doesnt work because armor values were doubled. LRMs needs to do at least 1.7 damage each to still be effective with the doubling of armor.

[malibu43]

No. Let them finish balancing everything else.

However, it would be nice if they rolled out changes to more features at once to maintain some level of balance (even if it means less frequent, bigger patches), instead of patches that change one thing at a time resulting in something being OP or nerfed for a week until another change skews things in another direction.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

25% is too much of a nerf. When LRMs were at 1.6 damage they were largely considered useless. I think 1.7 or 1.8 is just about right for LRMs.

I disagree that they were useless then, but I will say - when they had 1.6, they also had less tight grouping and different flight paths then they since the patch they also dealt 2 damage per missile. 1.6 and the grouping and flight path of the 2-damage per missile patch, and a boost (but not the current one) of Artemis should make the weapon be just fine.


Maybe people have too high expectations of a missile boat. Maybe it's the Gaussapult's fault, people believe just because the K2 is a master killer on the battlefield, every 65 ton mech must be en par. But they're comparing a mech with an overpowered level 2 tech weapon with a normal powered LRM.

I also believe that people really undervalue indirect fire. Every shot you can land while the enemy cannot shoot you back is twice as good as a typical direct fire exchange were both sides can deliver damage too each other.

[Pando]

Are you really that ignorant. OP this comment is directed to you and anyone who suggests the developers break the balance and tactical aspect of the game.

We do not need to NERF anything to my knowledge. We do need OTHER SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT IN OPEN BETA YET. Systems that are critical to balance of the game.

Is it not feasible that the developers have left this out on purpose to show the TRUE POWER of LRM's. Next, we'll see how impractical they are when ECM is deployed.

You have no idea how hard it is trying to refrain from blasting most of the pilots who feel this way. I am always open for discussion privately if you feel you can defend yourself against my facts on the matter.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Nope 1 damage doesnt work because armor values were doubled. LRMs needs to do at least 1.7 damage each to still be effective with the doubling of armor.

WHy? My AC20 still deals only 20 damage. A Gauss Rifle still deals only 15 damage. A PPC still deals only 10 damage. A MEdium Laser still deals only 5.

I fail to see the logic why LRMs are the only weapon that needs to have its weapon doubled. There was a reason for doubling armour, and it was not because the doubled value looked neater - it was because combat was too fast. If you just raise any weapons damage to double, then you could have just as well not done anything.

[Purlana]

Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Nope 1 damage doesnt work because armor values were doubled. LRMs needs to do at least 1.7 damage each to still be effective with the doubling of armor.

Then they need to increase the DMG values for other weapons. My AC/20 should do 40 DMG, making it into an AC 40!

Edited by Purlana, 07 November 2012 - 08:47 AM.