

Would You Accept A Nerf Of 25% To Lrms' Damage?
#21
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:46 AM
So I suggest, make them spread MUCH wider, missing a lot. Then, let TAG focus on the location where it is aimed at, Artemis should make their spread back to what it is now (without the "dog leg" arcing issue, that just needs to be completely removed). NARC should just give visibility without LoS on the NARC'ed target for ~2 minutes.
#22
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:48 AM
Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:
Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.
That being said, I'd have no problem with 1.6-1.8 damage/missile, especially since TAG/NARC/Artemis helps out there. I was quite happy with 1.8/missile, though 1.6 would put us dangerously near the point of "if this doesn't get boosted accuracy, the "base" version stinks."
#23
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:49 AM
#24
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:49 AM
Orzorn, on 07 November 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:
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 isn't an LBX 10 2 damage per pellet? Yep 1 damage does work with the current lrm tracking. I am sorry I couldn't disagree with you two more.
#25
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:50 AM
#26
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM
Quote
Other weapons dont spread out their damage like LRMs do though, so that argument doesnt hold up. The reason LRMs need increased damage is because they can't be aimed for specific locations and their damage is spread out evenly across the mech. Conversely, your AC/20 doesnt need increased damage because, unlike LRMs, it can be aimed at specific locations on the enemy mech. Although the AC/20 could use an ammo per ton increase because 7 ammo per ton still isnt enough.
Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2012 - 08:59 AM.
#28
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM
Scratx, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:
The problem IS the damage they inflict per hit, the trajectory is clearly a glitch that is only helping to show how fast LRM can kill mechs when they're meant to SUPPRESS. There will never be teamwork again if LRM boats don't need help to kill enemies.
Or did we already forget that LRM were SUPPOSED to be the "support"?
Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:
They were never useless at 1.6, the trajectory was bad back then but premades made LRM boats super useful as they always have.
Besides, LRM are not supposed to be doing the assaults, heavies or mediums job: Damage.
Edited by Cel, 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM.
#29
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM
wanderer, on 07 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:
Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.
That being said, I'd have no problem with 1.6-1.8 damage/missile, especially since TAG/NARC/Artemis helps out there. I was quite happy with 1.8/missile, though 1.6 would put us dangerously near the point of "if this doesn't get boosted accuracy, the "base" version stinks."
Streaks cannot be fired at any other location then ct....just like artemis or tag lrms? At least half hit the torso even when you fire without either of these....unless your lrms are scarily more inaccurate then everybody elses.
#30
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM
Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:
Except missles now group tighter, so shouldn't they get a DMG reduction to adjust for this?
Edited by Purlana, 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM.
#31
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:53 AM
#32
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM
#33
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM
wanderer, on 07 November 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:
Every other weapon can be fired at a specific location. QQ more- heck, they should up LB-X pellet damage for good measure for the same reasons.
;
First off drop the QQ line it makes you look like an... Well i will leave that alone. Second, i would love my lbx to be two points a pop.
#34
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:55 AM
#35
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:55 AM
Viper69, on 07 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:
I'd rather the LBX wasn't made of paper and blew up instantly like a gauss just because the armor "fell" off.
#36
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:56 AM
Artemis IV is fine (assuming it does not work on indirect fire). The difference between recent patch iterations and earlier ones in the closed beta is primarily in the matters of range and spotting.
For a while, LRMs had a 650m range, which made them pretty useless. The 1km range change is huge, and a good one for balance (especially since all direct-fire weapons have much higher maximum ranges than the TT allows). With spotting being implemented as well, that means that long range indirect fire can be brought to bear against a target, which is exactly as it should be. The problem lies in the combination of those factors with a doubling of damage. No other weapon has such a huge change to damage output. SRMs have a minor boost, but that I suspect is largely to differentiate them damage-wise from LRMs (though used to do twice the damage per missile, now they just do +.5 per missile).
IMO, keep the range, as well as the launch angle (the immediate arc effect is great). Change the end of the flight path from a super sharp vector change into a smooth curve (basically, follow the launch arc all the way to the terminal impact). This makes cover super important, and prevents the concentration of damage to the head area of mechs. Then, reduce damage on LRMs to 1.5 per missile, increase ammo per ton a bit, and make NARC provide target data regardless of LOS. Make TAG and Artemis IV both tighten the grouping of inbound missiles, but have TAG work for all missiles launched at the lit target and A4 only work for direct fire from the mech using Artemis-enhanced launchers.
#37
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:57 AM
hessian, on 07 November 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:
Except most of us are already talking from experience, not theory. We played when LRM were 1.0, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0. I Liked it when it was 1.6, I felt the difference on 1.8 and you already know wtf is going on with 2.0.
#38
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:59 AM
Orzorn, on 07 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:
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).
This, all of it.
#39
Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:59 AM
Khobai, on 07 November 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:
Other weapons dont spread out their damage like LRMs do though, so that argument doesnt hold up. The reason LRMs need increased damage is because they can't be aimed for specific locations and their damage is spread out evenly across the mech. Conversely, your AC/20 doesnt need increased damage because, unlike LRMs, can be aimed at specific locations on the enemy mech.
LRMs did spread their damage and did miss in the table top as well. Yet they dealt 1 damage per missile there.
You may notice, however, that an LRM20 has a much higher range than an AC/20, but yet weighs less and needs less space. ANd it had more ammo per ton as well (5 per ton for the AC/20, 6 shots - 6 x 20 missiles - per ton for the LRM20)
Ever considered that maybe they did balance the LRM20s taking their range advantage and their spreading behaviour into account?
Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 November 2012 - 09:00 AM.
#40
Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:01 AM
Quote
They group tighter but they still dont all hit the same location.
And yes the general consensus is that LRMs need a damage reduction. I would say reduce the damage from 2 per missile to 1.7 or 1.8 per missile. Because a few patches ago when LRMs were 1.6 per missile they were widely regarded as useless.
Quote
LRMs were also one of the worst weapons in tabletop. Direct fire weapons like gauss, ppcs, and medium lasers were much more powerful to spam than LRMs. If LRMs were the same in MWO as they were in tabletop they would be so blatantly underpowered nobody would ever use them. LRMs absolutely needed a buff from tabletop stats, they just went a little overboard with it... LRMs do need a 10%-15% damage nerf, but they dont need to be completely castrated by only doing 1 damage per missile.
Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2012 - 09:08 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users