Ruins that thing where you could arc 2xLRM20+AIV followed a half-second later by 2xATM12s and have everything hit at once due to flight path differences. Sad face.
Does this mean when a Huntsman poptarts LRM20s half the salvo will fly straight while the last half arcs high after the huntsman falls back into cover?
The salvo from each launcher probably takes the same arc. If you chain fire you might get interesting results.
Fair point. What they intend to promote and how it pans out doesn't always scan. But I think their intention is clearly to reward LURMers for being active 2nd line players - whether there's some cheesy way to min/max this is almost a moot point?
On one hand, I'm kinda happy they are going to nerf indirect fire support to make it less effective, because I always felt it was a cheap and selfish way to get points / damage / kills. On the other hand, even buffed LRMs with direct LoS are probably going to be atrocious on top tier levels due to lack of pinpoint: IMHO, a dual IS LRM20 (20 tons of weaponry) ain't gonna scare anyone whom is using a more efficient and pinpoint build, like a Gauss + 5xERML (still 20 tons of IS weaponry). I'm, not sure what the outcome of this rework will be, but I truly hope this rework will force more people to not boat LRMs and actually force them to learn positioning and aiming... Less meat for the meat-grinder or boiled potatoes, and more hard but tasty snacks that actually requires some skills to be chewed and eaten properly.
Doesn’t it basically turn the LRMs into bad ATMs that are slightly better at indirect fire? Anyway, if this works as advertised then it is a good thing for me. The few (IS) mechs that I load with LRMs use them as secondary weapons with LOS or out of LOS for a brief moment after I get my own lock and retreat.
It should be an improvement if you have LOS. And LRMs will still be better than ATMs outside of 500m when both are doing 1 damage/missile.
Ton for ton, damage per heat, damage per second, I think LRMs win over ATMs outside of 270 m (3 damage atm range). Compare ATM 9 vs LRM 20 (both five tons and four slots). 18 damage for 7 heat with 5 second cool down vs 20 damage 5.6 heat with 4.6 second cool down. ATMs do get the edge on velocity, but get countered harder by AMS.
What do you guys think if Lock Time was dependent on range? The closer you are the shorter the lock time would be. The further away you are, takes more time to get a lock.
Fairly elegant solution. I'd have to see it in action to know what gameplay would emerge. How about tightness of grouping also being dependent on range - further away, more spread.
On one hand it seems fine, on the other hand LRMs would become even more useless when facing someone with full radar deprivation because it could probably have not enough time to even gain a lock. Also, lock time won't deal with NARC exploitation in Polar Highlands, while changing LRM trajectory combined with LRM velocity nerf with indirect trajectory at least would give more time to fast mechs to run away.
Nothing will change what happens to you on Polar when you get NARC'd, short of eliminating LRMs, which isn't going to happen. Because LRMs are still tactically viable in a team setting when used correctly, this is going to be about as far as gameplay changes go. You know, unless PGI loses their minds and just gets rid of indirect locks entirely. You can see the box, you can target the box, but you can't get a lock without LoS.
I was thinking along the lines of a buff for "good" LRM positioning behavior, no change for long range lock time. For example: 750 meters and beyond - full current lock time 750 to 500 - 75% of lock time 500 to 250 - 50% of lock time 250 to 0 - 25% of lock time Of course they could use a linear equation from 0 to 750 meter to smooth things out if that is simpler to code. Sounds great to get your own locks, but inside of 500 meters with the recticle changes and radar derp you are probably cored out before you get a lock. Increased speed, direct flight path, tighter spread are nice and all, but if you lost half your mech before you can get a lock and fire - who cares? Any direct fire mech (laser, ballistic, gauss, mrm) will do significant damage to an LRM boat trying to get its own lock inside of 500 meters before the missiles are even in the air. Trees and lamp posts need to be re-coded to not break los/locks.
You can still get a passive lock, then pop out of cover, fire in LOS low trajectory and retreat back to cover while the missiles are on their way. Even if you finish the guidance out of LOS, the trajectory was set when you fired, so you get all the benefits of LOS.
Remover is correct about the detriments of requiring your own locks with LoS, and it all ends up coming down to balance. LRMs by intent and design should be absolutely, completely OP considering the quality of a lock you should be able to get on a 10+ storey tall fusion furnace. But you can't have that in a multiplayer game that also needs to cater to mechs' that lack missile hardpoints. Anyway, another point Remover brought up about lock times seems fair, you get sensor data faster the closer you are, you should be able to get locks quicker the closer you are as well. Personally I'm looking forward to the PTS, because I want to see if the LoS buffs make LRMs more viable in a mid-ranged fight for damage. Also curious how much of the missiles with hit a CT with both LoS + Artemis IV.
I'm liking the look of it, I must say. Being able to have LRMs on 2nd line Heavy/Assault 'mechs would be nice. As it stands, LURMing anything over 70 tons is unacceptable (rightly so, too) but with this change I am already envisioning LBX/LRM fits on quick heavy/assaults that could be both fun and effective.
