101 replies to this topic

[Krivvan]

VXJaeger, on 08 November 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

Nerfing LRMs....well probably a good thing but wouldn't have bothered me if you left damage as it was, and fix them coming through stones, walls etc. instead. ARC fix is OK.

They don't actually come through walls, that's a result of the lag. They appear to come through, hit, then result in no damage. At least that's what the majority are.

[VXJaeger]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

They don't actually come through walls, that's a result of the lag. They appear to come through, hit, then result in no damage. At least that's what the majority are.

Ok. Annoying as hell though

[Krivvan]

VXJaeger, on 08 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Ok. Annoying as hell though

Agreed. I believe it's lag because I never experience it but watching videos of other people I see it constantly.

[Smechwarrior]

Krivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

They don't actually come through walls, that's a result of the lag. They appear to come through, hit, then result in no damage. At least that's what the majority are.

From my experiences I dont think this is true.

I quite often will play peekaboo near a large structure/cliff/etc. with a mech if my team has enough LRMs to make it worthwhile. I will spot until I see something fire on me, usually they are at 600m +. I will then go behind my cover which takes about 1 second. It takes usually at least 3 seconds while i'm behind cover for the missiles to reach me, and sometimes they will go right through the cover and damage my mech. More often than not, they don't go through the cover, I think it might have something to do with the structures/landscape having broken hit detection for missiles or something.

If it is lag, 3 seconds of lag is absurd. I usually have under 200 ping, not 3000+.

I haven't really done this since the 90 degrees of death buff though. I tried it once and got 1 salvod (maybe 2 i dont recall that well) and quickly realized this was no longer an effective tactic. Thus, I can't say if this problem is still occuring, I assume it still is since PGI hasn't said they fixed it yet.

[The ZeroCool]

I did notice that it is ALOT easier to kill and get killed by LRMs now. a couple matches I was down in two missile volleys in a Centurion ( with endo structure, FF, and boosted CT armor). But, considering I like to use missiles, I won't complain! If anything I think it could be nerf'd slightly, but anymore then that then they won't be that effective.

[Voidsinger]

Actually, I'd like to see them either drop LRMs back to 120/ton, or reduce the proportionate damage to say 1.25 to keep proportion with SRMs.

It is ridiculous to look at cost of reloads:

LRMs (guided, longrange): 30 060 / ton
SRMs (semi-guided, short range): 27 000 / ton

Potential Damage per ton (LRMs) : 360
Potential Damage per ton (SRMs): 250

Cost per missile (LRM): 167
Cost per missile (SRM): 270

Cost per point of potential damage (LRM): 83.5
Cost per point of potential damage (SRM): 108

On economics alone, something is hideously wrong in play balance between SRMs and LRMs. Never mind LRMs don't need special missiles for NARC, and SRMs can't use NARC at all. We won't touch SRM accuracy (if it was fired from an SRM launcher over 50m it would miss).

You want to stop another abuse, stop the 3/4 free re-arm point, many players use it to not fully top up and save funds. Cut ammo costs to one third current prices, and make players pay in ful

[Kaelus]

Voidsinger, on 08 November 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

Actually, I'd like to see them either drop LRMs back to 120/ton, or reduce the proportionate damage to say 1.25 to keep proportion with SRMs.

It is ridiculous to look at cost of reloads:

LRMs (guided, longrange): 30 060 / ton
SRMs (semi-guided, short range): 27 000 / ton

Potential Damage per ton (LRMs) : 360
Potential Damage per ton (SRMs): 250

Cost per missile (LRM): 167
Cost per missile (SRM): 270

Cost per point of potential damage (LRM): 83.5
Cost per point of potential damage (SRM): 108

On economics alone, something is hideously wrong in play balance between SRMs and LRMs. Never mind LRMs don't need special missiles for NARC, and SRMs can't use NARC at all. We won't touch SRM accuracy (if it was fired from an SRM launcher over 50m it would miss).

You want to stop another abuse, stop the 3/4 free re-arm point, many players use it to not fully top up and save funds. Cut ammo costs to one third current prices, and make players pay in ful

They better cut back those prices then. If they are going to nerf LRMS to weak firecrackers again. The cost + artemis is insane.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is true, but even if 1/2 the missiles miss that's still 1,836 damage, more than enough to destroy any mech.

And 408 damage from medium lasers, that you can aim for CT, is more than enough to destroy 2-3 mechs.

[VXJaeger]

The ZeroCool, on 08 November 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

I did notice that it is ALOT easier to kill and get killed by LRMs now. a couple matches I was down in two missile volleys in a Centurion ( with endo structure, FF, and boosted CT armor). But, considering I like to use missiles, I won't complain! If anything I think it could be nerf'd slightly, but anymore then that then they won't be that effective.

Last night I was maybe in a half a dozen of games where were no missileboats at all. I wondered how's that possible, and few boatcaptains told that they were far too superior and they had changed them to something else 'cause of game
Real sportmanship, I salute them.

[Mu]

I never use LRMs, but even when they were at their 'weakest', I still saw some very effective groups with LRM support.

I personally thought they were fine last patch (good damage, easy to avoid) even though most people complained. If they are worse than that without artemis, and about even to that with it, then that will be just about perfect.

[rythex]

We can only hope they are nerfed to the point where I don't see 5 people sitting at spawn spamming missles the entire game and thinking they're amazing at videogames.

[Gristle]

DrAwkward, on 08 November 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Unless I'm mistaken, 1 ton of LRM ammo is still only 180 missiles. So, at Jun's cited 4 tons of ammo, this amounts to 720 missiles. That comes to only 1224 total potential damage if LRMs are set to 1.7 damage per missile. That's a pretty hefty load, to be sure. However, this represents an investment of 18 tons and your damage output can plummet fairly quickly if the enemy takes some basic precautions.

Let's assume that since Jun is using 2xLRM15 and 4xMLs that he is using the Trial Catapult C1. If he decides to stagger his fire, so that he could use those MLs against any light or medium 'mechs that decide to come his way, then he is very susceptible to AMS. Unless it changed since mid-October, one AMS roughly kills 5 Missiles per LRM15 volley. This means that even a single AMS could reduce his total damage output to only 816. If target/spotter movement and terrain cause half of his remaining missiles to miss, then he might only be doing 408 damage on the same 18 ton investment. This would be insufficient to kill an assault 'mech, and anything Dragon-speed or faster might decide to come brawl with him where he is weak. His stock heat sinks would only let him discourage rushers, not actually kill them unless a significant portion of his missiles had already struck them. He could die without helping his team, based solely on what his opponents do. I believe Jun's concern comes from the notion that you can invest a huge amount of tonnage into weapons that might not do anything.

you are correct - It was late and I used the wrong multiplier.

[DeathofSelf]

Hurray for speculation!

[Gristle]

Khobai, on 08 November 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

And 408 damage from medium lasers, that you can aim for CT, is more than enough to destroy 2-3 mechs.

I agree.

[rythex]

wow, are you seriously comparing something with 10-30% the range of the LRM's that generate heat and actually require aiming with the mouse (lasers) to LRM's?

You're bad.

I guess once the kids get a taste of broken gameplay mechanics they'll say anything to keep their lame *** build from getting nerfed.

[Mhyth]

Far better PGI overnerfs LRMs then brings LRM damage back up if needed in small increments over time than claim a 'hot fix' has been put in that wasn't nearly enough of an adjustment.

The first will upset a few players that will keep playing and seek the next FoM build - the later will continue to drive away players, many of which they may never get back.

[Zerikin]

Its only a 15% reduction in LRM damage, not that much.

[Orzorn]

Zerikin, on 08 November 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Its only a 15% reduction in LRM damage, not that much.

Sound about right. Most people were saying anything over 1.6 will still be competitive, and 1.8 will still be quite strong, so 1.7 is about par.

[Jun Watarase]

I've been testing LRMs, and now even when a mech is standing at the crest of a hill, the LRMs dive into the hill instead of over it.

So yes, you can stand near the top of a hill, look over it, shoot over it, and be immune to LRMs....

And 30 LRMs with artemis = 1% damage to an atlas. We are back to the old days of LRM needing 2 tons of ammo to kill a mech guys.

[Joseph Mallan]

Orzorn, on 08 November 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Sound about right. Most people were saying anything over 1.6 will still be competitive, and 1.8 will still be quite strong, so 1.7 is about par.

I can live with 1.7 and I hope you can't when I'm throwing missiles at you