Edited by Gabz, 08 November 2012 - 12:41 PM.
#61
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:40 PM
#62
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:40 PM
As it is now, its pretty good.
#63
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:44 PM
#64
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:48 PM
#65
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:48 PM
#66
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:51 PM
FYI that Commando could have a AMS, or be close to someone who has one, or two AMS's depending on chassis.
Oh and TY for turning down the SRM 100% torso shots. makes more sense now.
#67
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:52 PM
Suskis, on 08 November 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:
a question from me to you...
... did you ever shoot at an enemy scout which is travelling at 10 hexes per round and hit him at a distance of 20 hexes when you walk 3 hexes?
In MWO you will hit the 130 kph Jenner when he is not in cover over nearly 1000 meter - but not with the full volley - so where is your problem?
- btw. 4 lrm 20 in MWO deal 160 pts of damage when all missles hit (ok after the hotfix they do 136 but they still deal a massive amount of damage compared to the LRM´s on the table) -
Sure the balancing of all weapon´s will not be finished but after the hotfix the LRM´s are fine to me - you want the LRM´s back to the strengh they got, ok but if that happens i please want DHS at 2.0 ER PPC´s and all Laser´s with less heat...
-- sorry for my english but i am not a native speaker --
Edited by Duncan Morales, 08 November 2012 - 12:53 PM.
#68
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:52 PM
So i do a lot of LRM boating for a while now when i play premade, i started before they were incredibly strong, before Artemis came, and when they were quite weak in the past and now after the hotfix i also tried it.
I have to say there is a little bit on balance that has to be done on the LRM damage, feels a bit low after the hotfix, could also be a wrong feeling because they were so uber before the patch5, but thats not the point i want to discuss.
In my opinion, Artemis became really uneconomical after the patch.
For example i payed about 1.3 million CBills for upgrading my LRM's to Artemis. Thats fine for me if there weren't the doubled ammo costs which you also have to pay for rearm. Before the hotfix i only did like 80-100k CBills profit after rearm and repairs. But now, it dropped down to 60-70k if i win a match and thats really horrible.
In my opinion you should drop the doubled ammo costs for Artemis, if you force people to already pay over 1 million, because buffing it will result in some kind of imbalance again and everyone will start crying again ...
So on the one hand you have a nerfed Artemis which is still a nice advantage, but got nerfed in every single point and on the otherhand its nonprofitable to play LRM's with Artemis!
So something should be done to decrese the costs in any way!
But thats only my opinion, what do you guys think about it?
Edit: Forgot to mention it, all CBill informations given are with a Premium Account!
So without you wount even do profit at all with a win ...
Edited by Xenroth, 08 November 2012 - 01:09 PM.
#69
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:53 PM
I really can't understand, what you try to say ....
Edited by Taron, 08 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.
#70
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:53 PM
#71
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:56 PM
#72
Posted 08 November 2012 - 12:58 PM
Is it, cause you have to THINK now, before firing?
Edited by Taron, 08 November 2012 - 12:58 PM.
#73
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:02 PM
#74
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:04 PM
Edited by Taron, 08 November 2012 - 01:05 PM.
#75
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:04 PM
#76
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:08 PM
In fact, i still think, it's too strong - even i use Artemis IV myself. Well, ECM will come.
Edited by Taron, 08 November 2012 - 01:10 PM.
#77
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:09 PM
Daekar, on 08 November 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
This guy knows what hes talking about... the intention of Lrms is a Support weapon.. NOT a primary... this is Role warfare.. lrms as they were left little to no room in the game for stragety save for running and hiding and hoping the opposing team ran out of LRMs first if u wanna play tower defense i suggest u get a tower defense game, this is a simulator. Brawling in my opinion is more fun and is where real pilots display their talents any noob can steal a lock and press the big red mouse button..
personally I still think that Line of site Locking should be limited to first person Line of site only unless enemy unit is narc'd or tagged that would put Lrms in exactly the role they should be used in, a support arterilly weapons in team warfare
#78
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:11 PM
I don't know how they would implement that in MWO. It wouldn't be by changing trajectory. They might opt for tighter grouping so long as LoS is maintained. That way more missiles would hit a single location.
#79
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:16 PM
Titanium Booger, on 08 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:
This guy knows what hes talking about... the intention of Lrms is a Support weapon.. NOT a primary... this is Role warfare.. lrms as they were left little to no room in the game for stragety save for running and hiding and hoping the opposing team ran out of LRMs first if u wanna play tower defense i suggest u get a tower defense game, this is a simulator. Brawling in my opinion is more fun and is where real pilots display their talents any noob can steal a lock and press the big red mouse button..
personally I still think that Line of site Locking should be limited to first person Line of site only unless enemy unit is narc'd or tagged that would put Lrms in exactly the role they should be used in, a support arterilly weapons in team warfare
Meh. Spotters gonna spot. LoS locking should increase accuracy with Artemis equipped missiles or reduce spread. Some of these things don't translate well from TT. Like Tag decreases time to lock and boosts accuracy. In TT it's for use with SGLRMs.
In any case I haven't had a chance to login today. I like that they instituted a damage reduction to LRMs and it wasn't all the way down to TT measures. And I don't use LRMs.
#80
Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:34 PM
12 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users