People seem to think that since armour was doubled, all the weapon damages should be doubled too.
Was anyone around that actually remembers when the original TT armour was used?
'Mechs would last all of 4 MLas shots to the CT.
LRMs had damage increased because of their damage spread and the fact that a good deal of the missiles missed and damage was spread out.
Armour was increased to make matches last longer than 2 minutes.
LRM damage was fine as it was pre-patch. Their "new" trajectory should be flattened out to more match the old trajectory IMO so people have the option to use cover.
As for the Artemis IV. Maybe reduce the tightening of the grouping so it only increases overall damage by 10-15% but perhaps an even flatter trajectory that reduces flight time. This would make LRMs hit even harder, but make them even easier to avoid by using cover.
3
Would You Accept A Nerf Of 25% To Lrms' Damage?
Started by Sybreed, Nov 07 2012 08:27 AM
121 replies to this topic
#82
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:36 PM
Keifomofutu, on 07 November 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
I don't know why people keep talking about damage. Artemis negating all cover but caves and tunnels is the problem.
As far as artemis is concerned the map might as well be completely flat. Fix this issue and you can use terrain to neutralize LRMs like before.
EDIT:And now the on top of your head artemis arc is a confirmed bug so there you go. Add ECM and without the silly terrain negating arc I doubt artemis will be OP by the next patch.
As far as artemis is concerned the map might as well be completely flat. Fix this issue and you can use terrain to neutralize LRMs like before.
EDIT:And now the on top of your head artemis arc is a confirmed bug so there you go. Add ECM and without the silly terrain negating arc I doubt artemis will be OP by the next patch.
It will become useless against any organized group. Thus LRMs still broken due to them being useless in premade versus premade, and often overpowering in pug versus pug. That is a badly designed weapon at it's core. Buffing/nerfing won't fix the weapon, it needs redesigned in functionality.
#83
-
-
- 28 posts
Member
- LocationOxford
Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:43 PM
I'm in agreement that the simple argument that "double damage LRMs means double all other weapon damages" is a bit short-sighted. But they are massively overpowered as they are.
Currently, as many others have said, LRMs are the damage dealers. I have not seen one match recently that didn't involve a mass of LRM boats hanging back blasting away. The only reason this would happen consistently is that they are overpowered, if they weren't there would be more variety in tactics.
Though yes LRMs spread their damage around more than other weapons, consider that you'll very often hit with an entire volley when direct firing. In TT LRMs would only hit with about 60% of the missiles most of the time, so by giving them 1 damage per hit they are getting roughly a 50% damage increase just because they're almost all hitting. Giving them 1.5 damage as well gives them a whopping 125% damage increase over TT.
But will that balance out against the spread out damage? I don't know until I've tried it, so though I think damage should be back to 1 (or at least back to 1.5) I don't have a final opinion on that and I'm open to trying things out. All I'm certain of is that 2 per missile is too much.
What I think they really need to see is an accuracy reduction for indirect fire. I think they should only get full accuracy (ie the same accuracy as direct fire) with Tag or Narc in effect. LRMs are not remotely guided, they only have their onboard guidance systems to work with, and without direct line-of-sight to the target they will lose track of it.
So say they home in on the last known location of the target (ie what the battlemech firing them knows from the spotter). They aim at that location until they get direct visual contact with the target (by cresting the hill or whatever), then they have a chance of re-acquiring the target with 100% chance if the target is standing in the same spot as when the missiles were fired, but a lower chance the further away the target is from the original position. With Tag or Narc they will have a much higher chance of reacquiring the target. At that point, the guidance of the missile kicks in for those missiles that reacquire while the others just hit the ground where they were originally targeted.
I also think LRMs should have a harder time tracking fast-moving targets even with direct fire, it's far too easy to hit speeding 'mechs with them which is yet another advantage they have over direct fire weapons. Reduce their turning speed a little. Not a lot, it shouldn't take much to fix this, but 'mechs running at high speed (81+kph) should have a good chance of avoiding them unless they do something daft like run straight towards or away from the missiles. 'mechs moving at moderate speed (60-80kph) should at least be able to avoid some of them if they manoeuvre correctly.
Combine both of these ideas and LRMs will be a lot less easy to use to do massive damage and make Tag or Narc instrumental in effective indirect fire. It will also make recon 'mechs less victim to the massed LRMs, which I've seen rip them apart on many occasions.
So to summarise how broken LRMs are:
+LRMs do double damage compared to TT
+LRMs hit with 50% more missiles than in TT
+LRMs are more easy to hit with with than TT
+LRMs are just as accurate while firing indirectly
-LRMs spread their damage around
One minus to many plusses.
And for Artemis - it just shouldn't help with indirect fire at all, it should require the firer to keep a lock-on to the target to keep any advantage, So if someone wants to be a stand-up fighter, they take Artemis and then they have a good chance against other direct-fire weapons (with 1.5 damage per missile, the Artemis will make up for it). If someone wants to offer indirect fire support, they ditch the Artemis for extra ammo.
Currently, as many others have said, LRMs are the damage dealers. I have not seen one match recently that didn't involve a mass of LRM boats hanging back blasting away. The only reason this would happen consistently is that they are overpowered, if they weren't there would be more variety in tactics.
Though yes LRMs spread their damage around more than other weapons, consider that you'll very often hit with an entire volley when direct firing. In TT LRMs would only hit with about 60% of the missiles most of the time, so by giving them 1 damage per hit they are getting roughly a 50% damage increase just because they're almost all hitting. Giving them 1.5 damage as well gives them a whopping 125% damage increase over TT.
But will that balance out against the spread out damage? I don't know until I've tried it, so though I think damage should be back to 1 (or at least back to 1.5) I don't have a final opinion on that and I'm open to trying things out. All I'm certain of is that 2 per missile is too much.
What I think they really need to see is an accuracy reduction for indirect fire. I think they should only get full accuracy (ie the same accuracy as direct fire) with Tag or Narc in effect. LRMs are not remotely guided, they only have their onboard guidance systems to work with, and without direct line-of-sight to the target they will lose track of it.
So say they home in on the last known location of the target (ie what the battlemech firing them knows from the spotter). They aim at that location until they get direct visual contact with the target (by cresting the hill or whatever), then they have a chance of re-acquiring the target with 100% chance if the target is standing in the same spot as when the missiles were fired, but a lower chance the further away the target is from the original position. With Tag or Narc they will have a much higher chance of reacquiring the target. At that point, the guidance of the missile kicks in for those missiles that reacquire while the others just hit the ground where they were originally targeted.
I also think LRMs should have a harder time tracking fast-moving targets even with direct fire, it's far too easy to hit speeding 'mechs with them which is yet another advantage they have over direct fire weapons. Reduce their turning speed a little. Not a lot, it shouldn't take much to fix this, but 'mechs running at high speed (81+kph) should have a good chance of avoiding them unless they do something daft like run straight towards or away from the missiles. 'mechs moving at moderate speed (60-80kph) should at least be able to avoid some of them if they manoeuvre correctly.
Combine both of these ideas and LRMs will be a lot less easy to use to do massive damage and make Tag or Narc instrumental in effective indirect fire. It will also make recon 'mechs less victim to the massed LRMs, which I've seen rip them apart on many occasions.
So to summarise how broken LRMs are:
+LRMs do double damage compared to TT
+LRMs hit with 50% more missiles than in TT
+LRMs are more easy to hit with with than TT
+LRMs are just as accurate while firing indirectly
-LRMs spread their damage around
One minus to many plusses.
And for Artemis - it just shouldn't help with indirect fire at all, it should require the firer to keep a lock-on to the target to keep any advantage, So if someone wants to be a stand-up fighter, they take Artemis and then they have a good chance against other direct-fire weapons (with 1.5 damage per missile, the Artemis will make up for it). If someone wants to offer indirect fire support, they ditch the Artemis for extra ammo.
Edited by TheCerberus, 07 November 2012 - 12:50 PM.
#84
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 29 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:49 PM
FOR **** SAKE *******! LRM are SUPPORT dmg! NOT MAIN LONG RANGE MECH DESTROYERS.
Can some 1 explain me? They halfened dropship launcher to 4 so there wont be too big of a team work and now gave artemis so ppl would play more together and more teamwork? WTF IS UP WITH THAT ****? Does developers has BRAINS or they all are ZOMBIES? This game became soo much more booring than last patch. ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY NOW!
Since when a LRM should be a MUST weapon? Decrease by 25%? If artemis stays ,then it should be 50% ATLEAST and im generous. top 3 for exp dmg and kills spots are always LRM boats. WOOT THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
Can some 1 explain me? They halfened dropship launcher to 4 so there wont be too big of a team work and now gave artemis so ppl would play more together and more teamwork? WTF IS UP WITH THAT ****? Does developers has BRAINS or they all are ZOMBIES? This game became soo much more booring than last patch. ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY NOW!
Since when a LRM should be a MUST weapon? Decrease by 25%? If artemis stays ,then it should be 50% ATLEAST and im generous. top 3 for exp dmg and kills spots are always LRM boats. WOOT THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
Edited by D1irte, 07 November 2012 - 12:50 PM.
#85
-
-
- Mercenary Rank 2
- 293 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:51 PM
MustrumRidcully, on 07 November 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:
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.
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.
Yes you are correct ... you FAIL. Fail to see the logic when it is inconvenient to your argument.
All weapons are precise as they have never been before. In the TT game you can't shoot at a specific location as you do here. People are getting good enough to headshot consistently despite the fact it only could happen 2% of the time in the TT game because of the 2d6 probability curve.
The comparison is not valid as it applies to LRMs as they are spread fairly randomly across the body of the mech even more so than they would be in the TT game as the damage was divided into 5 point lots and located by random die roll. On average that meant two locations would take 5 points of damage and one would take 2 points (that which was left over) from an LRM20 hit (the number of missiles that actually hit was also determined by random die roll). Shots per ton being roughly the same (maybe just a tad better), the damage had to be increased to make the weapon useful enough for anyone to use it.
In the rules for many years the LRMs and SRMs were both capable of being used indirectly. It wasn't until the rules compendium came out that indirect fire was limited to LRMs, a role for which they were specifically designed. Note that at no time were they dumb-fire rockets, all missiles in the game were considered to be guided weapons, though for SRMs the guidance was limited. This is reflected by the fact that streak SRMs when introduced were said to have more advanced guidance systems than standard SRMs and the average number of missiles that hit with any given volley is more than half the number fired. In some of the books they mention getting missile lock with SRMs as well, though I do not consider the novels canon in the least.
#86
-
-
- Bad Company
- 6,612 posts
Member
- LocationOlympus Mons
Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:57 PM
The problem is that there is an Internal Structure bug so I have no idea if LRMs-Artemis is doing too much damage. LRMs are crit seekers so the bug lets them destroy the internal structure in a few shots, seems to hit weapons too, maybe connected to internal structure?
Otherwise I would say that I feel a bit OP'd when I take down an undamaged Atlas in 5 seconds.
Otherwise I would say that I feel a bit OP'd when I take down an undamaged Atlas in 5 seconds.
Edited by Lightfoot, 07 November 2012 - 12:59 PM.
#87
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:00 PM
Thorn Blackwell, on 07 November 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:
Yes you are correct ... you FAIL. Fail to see the logic when it is inconvenient to your argument.
All weapons are precise as they have never been before. In the TT game you can't shoot at a specific location as you do here. People are getting good enough to headshot consistently despite the fact it only could happen 2% of the time in the TT game because of the 2d6 probability curve.
The comparison is not valid as it applies to LRMs as they are spread fairly randomly across the body of the mech even more so than they would be in the TT game as the damage was divided into 5 point lots and located by random die roll. On average that meant two locations would take 5 points of damage and one would take 2 points (that which was left over) from an LRM20 hit (the number of missiles that actually hit was also determined by random die roll). Shots per ton being roughly the same (maybe just a tad better), the damage had to be increased to make the weapon useful enough for anyone to use it.
In the rules for many years the LRMs and SRMs were both capable of being used indirectly. It wasn't until the rules compendium came out that indirect fire was limited to LRMs, a role for which they were specifically designed. Note that at no time were they dumb-fire rockets, all missiles in the game were considered to be guided weapons, though for SRMs the guidance was limited. This is reflected by the fact that streak SRMs when introduced were said to have more advanced guidance systems than standard SRMs and the average number of missiles that hit with any given volley is more than half the number fired. In some of the books they mention getting missile lock with SRMs as well, though I do not consider the novels canon in the least.
All weapons are precise as they have never been before. In the TT game you can't shoot at a specific location as you do here. People are getting good enough to headshot consistently despite the fact it only could happen 2% of the time in the TT game because of the 2d6 probability curve.
The comparison is not valid as it applies to LRMs as they are spread fairly randomly across the body of the mech even more so than they would be in the TT game as the damage was divided into 5 point lots and located by random die roll. On average that meant two locations would take 5 points of damage and one would take 2 points (that which was left over) from an LRM20 hit (the number of missiles that actually hit was also determined by random die roll). Shots per ton being roughly the same (maybe just a tad better), the damage had to be increased to make the weapon useful enough for anyone to use it.
In the rules for many years the LRMs and SRMs were both capable of being used indirectly. It wasn't until the rules compendium came out that indirect fire was limited to LRMs, a role for which they were specifically designed. Note that at no time were they dumb-fire rockets, all missiles in the game were considered to be guided weapons, though for SRMs the guidance was limited. This is reflected by the fact that streak SRMs when introduced were said to have more advanced guidance systems than standard SRMs and the average number of missiles that hit with any given volley is more than half the number fired. In some of the books they mention getting missile lock with SRMs as well, though I do not consider the novels canon in the least.
SRMs and SSRM are not precise yet only got a 25% increase in damage. The LBX10 is not precise yet got no damage increase. Yeah... LRMs are special snowflakes that get double damage along with the increased fire rate (like all weapons), only weapon that doesn't require LOS and can fire over much of the cover that is effective against all other weapons. Yet other non precise weapons got marginal damage boost or none, while still requiring LOS, close range and being effected by much more cover than the LRMs.
#88
-
-
- 1,647 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:04 PM
Thorn Blackwell, on 07 November 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:
Yes you are correct ... you FAIL. Fail to see the logic when it is inconvenient to your argument.
All weapons are precise as they have never been before. In the TT game you can't shoot at a specific location as you do here. People are getting good enough to headshot consistently despite the fact it only could happen 2% of the time in the TT game because of the 2d6 probability curve.
All weapons are precise as they have never been before. In the TT game you can't shoot at a specific location as you do here. People are getting good enough to headshot consistently despite the fact it only could happen 2% of the time in the TT game because of the 2d6 probability curve.
TT did not have lag shields. Direct fire weapons need more DMG to compensate, LRMs do not suffer from the same issue.
#89
-
-
- The Wolf
- 2,984 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:06 PM
Sybreed, on 07 November 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:
Keep in mind that once ECM is in, we might stop thinking LRMs are OP.
This! I have yet to see a complaint that takes ECM into consideration.
MustrumRidcully, on 07 November 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:
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.
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.
Because prior to making them do double damage they were surprisingly under powered compared to many of the direct fire weapons. Besides LRMs have long been somewhat impressive weapons in CBT and that is evidenced by just how many 'Mechs carry even the smallest of LRM racks in standard configurations. FoTM really, when gauss comes back in style we will see complaints about that rise to the fore again.
#90
-
-
- Bad Company
- 257 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:15 PM
If anything, LRM could use a slight heat increase... But not a damage reduction.
I agree that the LRM flight path is weird.. it shouldn't be as steep, or even if take off angle is steep, approach angle should be a little shallower. A heat increase would ultimately reduce the firing rate in a way that would better balance LRM against other weapons, requiring a player to trade ammo for a better effective cooldown time. Reducing damage doesn't stop 3 LRM boats from chainfiring you into oblivion.
There is stuff missing from the game.. ECM doesn't even work yet which WILL make a difference.
Also, I think the game maps are too small/not designed right. Every map is basically a firing alley, where the enemy comes from one main direction or one of two main directions. A couple LRM based mechs can post up , see most of the map, and sit relatively tight for the match.
If the maps were wider (so to speak, in a general sense) we would induce a more realistic possibility of flanking (not like the tunnel on forest.. just putting a random tunnel is not a flank option when everyone can see you coming as well as bottleneck you in about 10-20seconds(response time). By the time one team spots the other, the entire team can reposition very quickly , given moderate teamwork.
Using Forest as an example , again:
The designers basically put in 3 lanes in forest. Lets just call them Water lane, Center lane, and Hill lane.
The problem here is that Water and Center are both essentially wide open to snipers/LRM. Most of the fighting seems to happen in Hill lane as a result. If you are in this lane, and spot an enemy in either of the two lanes, you can shoot them with ANY long range weapon at most locations, given LOS, and even medium range mechs can still reach from the shore to the sea rocks without totally running out of cover.
So lets say that the Water lane grew about 500m wider, offering larger islands to dart around, or even better a deeper water depth around such islands (Underwater fight , anyone?) OR how about both! Positive and negative elevation changes. Let's also pretend that Hill lane was 500m wider, offering a boulder strewn hillside with ravines, and let's also pretend that this involves taking the roof off of the lame tunnel. Center lane, however remains mostly open, maybe with some sand dunes that are about the height of a mech's leg. Basically, the two side lanes grew, but the center lane remains mostly unchanged.
Now , there would be a reason to go water, other than "I saw it work once". However, committing to one side or the other would reduce your ability to cover the opposite side. It would take longer to reposition your team, and moving across the middle lane to respond to one of the side lanes would leave you exposed to LRM.
The goal would be to encourage scouting by giving the scouting team more protection from opposing lane fire, at the same time forcing a defending support mech to have to choose from one of two main directions to cover. River city begins to kind of show this level of design, by map features. Notice the general shape of the map , as well as the start locations relative to the map itself.
Anyways, that's my rant for today.
I agree that the LRM flight path is weird.. it shouldn't be as steep, or even if take off angle is steep, approach angle should be a little shallower. A heat increase would ultimately reduce the firing rate in a way that would better balance LRM against other weapons, requiring a player to trade ammo for a better effective cooldown time. Reducing damage doesn't stop 3 LRM boats from chainfiring you into oblivion.
There is stuff missing from the game.. ECM doesn't even work yet which WILL make a difference.
Also, I think the game maps are too small/not designed right. Every map is basically a firing alley, where the enemy comes from one main direction or one of two main directions. A couple LRM based mechs can post up , see most of the map, and sit relatively tight for the match.
If the maps were wider (so to speak, in a general sense) we would induce a more realistic possibility of flanking (not like the tunnel on forest.. just putting a random tunnel is not a flank option when everyone can see you coming as well as bottleneck you in about 10-20seconds(response time). By the time one team spots the other, the entire team can reposition very quickly , given moderate teamwork.
Using Forest as an example , again:
The designers basically put in 3 lanes in forest. Lets just call them Water lane, Center lane, and Hill lane.
The problem here is that Water and Center are both essentially wide open to snipers/LRM. Most of the fighting seems to happen in Hill lane as a result. If you are in this lane, and spot an enemy in either of the two lanes, you can shoot them with ANY long range weapon at most locations, given LOS, and even medium range mechs can still reach from the shore to the sea rocks without totally running out of cover.
So lets say that the Water lane grew about 500m wider, offering larger islands to dart around, or even better a deeper water depth around such islands (Underwater fight , anyone?) OR how about both! Positive and negative elevation changes. Let's also pretend that Hill lane was 500m wider, offering a boulder strewn hillside with ravines, and let's also pretend that this involves taking the roof off of the lame tunnel. Center lane, however remains mostly open, maybe with some sand dunes that are about the height of a mech's leg. Basically, the two side lanes grew, but the center lane remains mostly unchanged.
Now , there would be a reason to go water, other than "I saw it work once". However, committing to one side or the other would reduce your ability to cover the opposite side. It would take longer to reposition your team, and moving across the middle lane to respond to one of the side lanes would leave you exposed to LRM.
The goal would be to encourage scouting by giving the scouting team more protection from opposing lane fire, at the same time forcing a defending support mech to have to choose from one of two main directions to cover. River city begins to kind of show this level of design, by map features. Notice the general shape of the map , as well as the start locations relative to the map itself.
Anyways, that's my rant for today.
#91
-
-
- 178 posts
Member
- LocationChicago, IL
Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:31 PM
NO !
Nerf it more (down to 1), the only thing that should be higher is SRM's (1.2) and streaks (1.5). I think the FCS should add a flat .25 to the damage each missile, nothing more.
Nerf it more (down to 1), the only thing that should be higher is SRM's (1.2) and streaks (1.5). I think the FCS should add a flat .25 to the damage each missile, nothing more.
#92
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:19 PM
Nathan Foxbane, on 07 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:
This! I have yet to see a complaint that takes ECM into consideration.
How about this. ECM won't actually fix the true issue of the fact that LRMs are near useless in premade versus premade, and potentially OP in pug versus pug. The issue is not really the damage, but the core design of the LRMs that make them that way. THe only thing that will fix the issues is a redesign of the weapons system.
#93
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 190 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:21 PM
Pretty sure that ECM will help to adjust things, but I a little distraught that artemis came out first and not in tandem. Getting absolutely riddled by 6 catapults and a couple scouts is pretty disheartening.
#94
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:23 PM
Endarius, on 07 November 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:
Pretty sure that ECM will help to adjust things, but I a little distraught that artemis came out first and not in tandem. Getting absolutely riddled by 6 catapults and a couple scouts is pretty disheartening.
ECM will just cover it up, not fix anything. I personally like fixes rather than bandaids.
#95
-
-
- 28 posts
Member
- LocationOxford
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:24 PM
You should not need to install extra equipment to balance an un-upgraded weapon system. Tag/Narc/Artemis upgrades should give (what should be, but isn't) an otherwise balanced weapon a dangerous boost. The electronics upgrades should then be countered by ECM.
If ECM is required to counter LRMs and "make them balanced" then ballistic and energy weapons should have their damage doubled and some other upgrades should be added that is needed to "make them balanced" too.
If ECM is required to counter LRMs and "make them balanced" then ballistic and energy weapons should have their damage doubled and some other upgrades should be added that is needed to "make them balanced" too.
Edited by TheCerberus, 07 November 2012 - 02:28 PM.
#96
-
-
- 703 posts
Member
- LocationTexas
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:25 PM
I would wait to see how effective ECM is before messing with damage output on missiles.
#97
-
-
- 36 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:31 PM
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.
Damage values for other weapons are the same as TT. Nice try though.
#98
-
-
- 36 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:39 PM
One of the reasons armor was increased was that unlike in TT, your weapons here all focus on the same area and do not have separate hit location rolls to spread damage out. LL's or PPC's were scary enough in TT because it only took a little luck to completely negate any weight advantage you might have had. If all of your weapons converge on roughly the exact same point, the drilling effect is too high under old armor values.
This is the biggest problem with the LRM's right now, they are converging on one point instead of being spread out all over the mech like they are supposed to be. Their damage is ok, maybe a little on the high side, but the real problem is this drilling effect. It doesn't take any skill at all to giev misl and watch the other guy get cored.
This is the biggest problem with the LRM's right now, they are converging on one point instead of being spread out all over the mech like they are supposed to be. Their damage is ok, maybe a little on the high side, but the real problem is this drilling effect. It doesn't take any skill at all to giev misl and watch the other guy get cored.
#99
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:44 PM
Garrand, on 07 November 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:
One of the reasons armor was increased was that unlike in TT, your weapons here all focus on the same area and do not have separate hit location rolls to spread damage out. LL's or PPC's were scary enough in TT because it only took a little luck to completely negate any weight advantage you might have had. If all of your weapons converge on roughly the exact same point, the drilling effect is too high under old armor values.
This is the biggest problem with the LRM's right now, they are converging on one point instead of being spread out all over the mech like they are supposed to be. Their damage is ok, maybe a little on the high side, but the real problem is this drilling effect. It doesn't take any skill at all to giev misl and watch the other guy get cored.
This is the biggest problem with the LRM's right now, they are converging on one point instead of being spread out all over the mech like they are supposed to be. Their damage is ok, maybe a little on the high side, but the real problem is this drilling effect. It doesn't take any skill at all to giev misl and watch the other guy get cored.
Why weren't SRMs damage doubled then? THey don't converge on the same spot and often hit all different parts of the mech? They also don't track at all. Why aren't SSRMs damage being doubled since they no longer hit the same spot and spread damage around? They are short range and require LOS. Why isn't the LBX damage being doubled? It spread it's damage over various part of the mech. It requires LOS, lead time and compensation for lag and lead time? LRMs are being held to some special standard on the justification that they are not precise, when other non precise weapons are not held to the same standard despite also being harder to hit with and use ( outside of the SSRM which still requires LOS and being close to the target)
Though, I'll say this again, damage nerf won't fix the LRM, only a rework of how the LRM function will work.
#100
-
-
- 28 posts
Member
- LocationOxford
Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:33 PM
Noth, on 07 November 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:
Why weren't SRMs damage doubled then? THey don't converge on the same spot and often hit all different parts of the mech? They also don't track at all. Why aren't SSRMs damage being doubled since they no longer hit the same spot and spread damage around? They are short range and require LOS. Why isn't the LBX damage being doubled? It spread it's damage over various part of the mech. It requires LOS, lead time and compensation for lag and lead time? LRMs are being held to some special standard on the justification that they are not precise, when other non precise weapons are not held to the same standard despite also being harder to hit with and use ( outside of the SSRM which still requires LOS and being close to the target)
I'm in agreement with that. I can recognise the reasoning behind increasing LRM damage (do 1.5 at most, more is excessive) but other similar weapons need the same treatment. SRMs should do 3 damage each if LRMs do 1.5 each. LBX munitions are still easier to aim than LRMs/SRMs but they could be given a smaller boost (20% or thereabouts) for the same reason.Pulse lasers too spread their damage over a very long time period (yes it can be focused on one location, but that is rarely achieved) so I think should also get a small damage boost to compensate (20% like the LBX or maybe they could just be given a 20% longer pulse duration, at the same rate of damage, giving them 20% overall damage but a more noticable "pulsing" effect).
Noth, on 07 November 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:
Though, I'll say this again, damage nerf won't fix the LRM, only a rework of how the LRM function will work.
Very much the point i was trying to make earlier (though I think a damage nerf should be part of it, just not the whole part).
Edited by TheCerberus, 07 November 2012 - 03:35 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
