474 replies to this topic

[Burke IV]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 12 December 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am currently working on getting the OP (Original Poster) to post a link leading us to confirmation of his 'findings' on the interaction of tag and Artemis missiles, along with BAP and its interaction with missiles/ECM/sensor ranges. Eventually I will give up and contact a moderator for clarification on this matter. The link he has currently posted is useful, but I have at least found two known errors in the Artemis and TAG sections of it, so I wonder what else is wrong...

You should contact the mod, for the benefit of all of us. Bit of fact around the place would be good. Wheres the manual PGI?

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Burke IV, on 12 December 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

You should contact the mod, for the benefit of all of us. Bit of fact around the place would be good. Wheres the manual PGI?

I have just contacted one, but it might be a while before we get a response, as he hasn't been on in a week... I might try another in a day or two asking for help on getting this info.

[Burke IV]

Another question, does BAP stack with target info gathering module ?

[Victor Morson]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 12 December 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am currently working on getting the OP (Original Poster) to post a link leading us to confirmation of his 'findings' on the interaction of tag and Artemis missiles, along with BAP and its interaction with missiles/ECM/sensor ranges. Eventually I will give up and contact a moderator for clarification on this matter. The link he has currently posted is useful, but I have at least found two known errors in the Artemis and TAG sections of it, so I wonder what else is wrong...

If you want to disprove what I'm saying, feel free to make comparison videos to do so.

I am not going to go spend time trying to find static targets to demonstrate this stuff on (or waste a whole sync drop) just to disprove theories that "TAG and Artemis don't work together" and "TAG doesn't speed lock time" when I clearly, clearly see that it does, have been told that it does, and every bit of information out there (Except Tsuani's "lost post") states that it does.

Feel free to just try it yourself and watch the missiles. They notably shift. Remember, missiles work like this:

Firiing ------- X ---------- X ----------- X ----------- X ------- Target

Those four Xs are the four points along the missile arc path that it will "update" the angle, and when it does so, it makes a dramatic sweep in / sweep out based on targets. If you have a flight in the air and then TAG someone halfway through, you can literally see the missiles swarm in tighter.

I don't know what more I can tell anyone who chooses to not believe that these items do what they're supposed to do.

Burke IV, on 12 December 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Isnt narc virtually obselete as it is? The only proper use for it is on a spotter mech for a missile boat that has no artemis, because artys effect always over rides narc. Wheres the manual PGI? Im sure i read that artemis always cancels narc.

NARC is just awful, for a ton of reasons:

• 4 tons plus ammo
  
• Low ammo per ton
  
• Dumbfire with a poor velocity
  
• Can get disabled early when being LRM'ed
  
• Short range
  
• Supposedly does not stack with Artemis in the last Artemis update. I do not have confirmation on this personally because NARCs already lost me by point 3.

Effectively while it stacks with TAG, it's just a super, super crappy TAG. It's way too heavy and offers almost no benefits. The Living Legends NARCs were edited to have tracking up to 800m and a range up to 1000m and last much longer by comparison; so NARCs CAN be done right, but my God, they are awful in MW:O.



They badly need a buff but until then there's definitely better things you can do with that 5 tons minimum of space, esp. since a TAG has all the benefits for a single ton.

Burke IV, on 12 December 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Another question, does BAP stack with target info gathering module ?

Yep.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 December 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Nathan Bloodguard, on 12 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I have just contacted one, but it might be a while before we get a response, as he hasn't been on in a week... I might try another in a day or two asking for help on getting this info.

There's a good chance they won't know. I've had a couple questions sprung on PGI devs in interviews and I've gotten incorrect responses both times; they are likely to read a document and just read it back to you.

In scenario 1, Garth was asked a question about missile grouping with ghost heat (NGNG interview if you're interested), and then proceeded to stumble through saying that "most 'mechs can't have carry enough to make it happen" and he thought the launcher limit was 4; he also thought very few 'mechs could carry 4 missile hard points.

Point: Garth didn't understand anything about the system and he's our community manager.

In scenario 2, Russ was asked about why 'mech climbing ratings were as they were. At the time, they were all over the place; they still are a hidden stat from the players. For example, a Victor is "Huge" while a Stalker is "Large", despite the Stalker being heavier, giving the Stalker a better climb rate.

Russ's response was that the engine figures out climb rate based on "math" and tonnage. Both of these were wrong. You can even access the data files backing the point that effectively the mech designers sets a 'mech "Tiny, small, medium, large, huge" at their will, as well as the 'mechs knee height, and that directly impacts your climbing angle (each level decreases max and starting slowdown by 5 degrees.)

ED: Notably when the question was asked the ratings were all over the place, too. Centurions were tagged "Large" as were Kintaros, and the works. It was during that brief fad/phase PGI was all about "not making size and weight have anything to do with each other." Since then it's improved with a few quirks here and there, but I still take issue that a 'mechs climb rating isn't transparent information to the player because it does not work on a simple "Heavier = Worse climb" rule.

Sorry for being off topic but all I'm trying to say is don't expect much. If the very, very lead devs don't have any idea what's going on with mechanic interaction, I doubt anyone at tech support will, either.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 December 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

For those interested, I'm going to take some video piloting an LRM skirmisher up a bit later to hopefully showcase how to utilize the speed to keep LRMs in range.



If you ever want to get a module to help the XP grind pick up the UAV, it's been a massive help for me.

XP is not a problem did some conversion of XP from my founder catapult which had a massive amount of mech XP during one of the sales. The double XP thing also helps but cbills is the big grind there is little shortcut for. Though perhaps I just need to ride my founders for a while for the boost.

Anyway back to LRMs .... I don't know why people are bashing on victors post ... It looks pretty spot on theoretically and from my own experience.

As for the target decay being worthless because of moving into cover. ... A lot of the time people move behind low hills out of LOS so the missiles will still hit easily if they are still on radar and locked on. If you are in maps with lots of buildings then sure you gotta be more careful but I counted the number of salvos I missed due to loss of LOS where the missiles would still hit and that was quite a few on some maps.

[Varik Ronain]

Victor Morson, on 10 December 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

That's the A1. The A1 is an inferior LRM boat to the C4. Thus I do not recommend the A1 for LRMs due to ti's lack of TAG. The rule still applies.

I just have to plain disagree with you. Sure not having a tag hinders it some but being able to scrape off any lights that harass you allows you to fire for much longer. The A1 can boat LRM30 salvos and be support from far away AND can counter any light in the game. The biggest threat to a skilled LRM boat is being separated from your team and being singled out by the enemy lights/mediums. The A1 is just plain more survivable in a normal pug once attrition sets in and you dont have any cavalry coming to rescue you when you are screaming GET IT OFF GET IT OFF as a spider has its way with you.


Other than that I agree with what your guide is saying... you just forgot that jump jets allow you to hover up and fire over otherwise obstructive cover and can allow you to keep a line of sight better than your land chained boating brethren.

Edited by Varik Ronain, 12 December 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[luxebo]

Victor Morson, on 11 December 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Oh my Go-- hahahahahhahahahahaha.

The Locust is better than anything because of the model with an AC/10??

You do realize even if you only carry 2 tons of ammo, you can't even max the armor on something that doesn't have enough armor to survive a single heavy hit?

This right here is why I say you should stop giving advice as serious. As a gimmick joke, sure, but "more powerful?" A Commando sucks even and I'm not putting the "Paper cannon that will explode when brushed with a gentle breeze of small lasers" in the "more powerful" category than anything.

My God man. if you really think that's viable, there is no debate to be had.

He's giving an example. AC10 doesn't fit with even one ton of ammo. Trust me.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Victor Morson, on 12 December 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

If you want to disprove what I'm saying, feel free to make comparison videos to do so.

I am not going to go spend time trying to find static targets to demonstrate this stuff on (or waste a whole sync drop) just to disprove theories that "TAG and Artemis don't work together" and "TAG doesn't speed lock time" when I clearly, clearly see that it does, have been told that it does, and every bit of information out there (Except Tsuani's "lost post") states that it does.

Feel free to just try it yourself and watch the missiles. They notably shift. Remember, missiles work like this:

Firiing ------- X ---------- X ----------- X ----------- X ------- Target

Those four Xs are the four points along the missile arc path that it will "update" the angle, and when it does so, it makes a dramatic sweep in / sweep out based on targets. If you have a flight in the air and then TAG someone halfway through, you can literally see the missiles swarm in tighter.

I don't know what more I can tell anyone who chooses to not believe that these items do what they're supposed to do.

For starters, I;m not trying to disprove your theory or opinion or whatever you want to call this... I want you to PROVE that it all functions the way you are stating it does, by providing links with proper data/descriptions of these pieces of equipment and their interaction with one another. The last link has at least two errors that I know of, and I don't know how many more that I don't know of. The link does not say rather Tag and Artemis are compatible with one another, it just gives two points that says what does work with Tag and Artemis. So yet again, it doesn't prove or support your ideas at all as of this moment.

As for making a video. I don't have the ability to make them (aka a program to record), nor do I want it either. I don't trust random programs from the web, and mostly use programs that I buy off the self. I have a hard time downloading anything off the web and almost didn't download this game for that very reason. You never know what it is you are really downloading, and I don't have the money to blow on a new computer every month or three.

Edit: I don't ask devs for direct answers, I ask for links to the information so that I can get the answers for myself in a more in-depth way then a moderator trying to parrot it all from memory.

Edited by Nathan Bloodguard, 12 December 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Koniving]

luxebo, on 12 December 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

He's giving an example. AC10 doesn't fit with even one ton of ammo. Trust me.

It is possible, but you're better off with an LB-10x with 2 tons of ammo for the same vain attempt. Personally I prefer a Locust with a UAC/5.

[DONTOR]

This is a very well put together list. It doesnt however change the fact that LRM boating is the most borng way to play MWO.

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Anyway back to LRMs .... I don't know why people are bashing on victors post ... It looks pretty spot on theoretically and from my own experience.

As for the target decay being worthless because of moving into cover. ... A lot of the time people move behind low hills out of LOS so the missiles will still hit easily if they are still on radar and locked on. If you are in maps with lots of buildings then sure you gotta be more careful but I counted the number of salvos I missed due to loss of LOS where the missiles would still hit and that was quite a few on some maps.

For me at least, I'm not trying to bash his or anyone else's post, I just want to change it from theoretically to actual fact, with the interactions of Artemis and Tag, the advantages of BAP besides the ECM counter, of Tag vs ECM, and a few other things.

The big problem Victor is having is when someone disagrees with a point or two he has, like example, having 'defensive' or a secondary weapon system on an LRM mech, he freaks out and starts insulting the person and then telling them they are wrong, even though it is just their opinion (which is neither right nor wrong.)
(PS: This is not an insult to Victor just and observation from earlier in this thread...)

[Solis Obscuri]

"Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.

[Asmudius Heng]

DONTOR, on 12 December 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

This is a very well put together list. It doesnt however change the fact that LRM boating is the most borng way to play MWO.

I disagree, it's quite a challenge when facing decent enemy and is all about great positioning and reading the enemy and your own team movements. Being able to keep at range, kiting the enemy and moving to the best positions and knowing when to push in closer to support from a second line position - these are all very fun and interesting. When you get set pong by light mechs is also terrifying and being able to escape or call in help changes the dynamics.

I do not see many games where you just sit there clicking a single button raining LRMs ... If you do your enemies are so bad that an infight would be just as dull.

It's not quite as heart pumping as being a brawler but there is skill and tactics that move a player from a goo who can click a button to a terrifying bringer of pain from above that you seemingly cannot escape from.

[luxebo]

Koniving, on 12 December 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

It is possible, but you're better off with an LB-10x with 2 tons of ammo for the same vain attempt. Personally I prefer a Locust with a UAC/5.

Koniving, I can't seem to fit it all together to make it happen though. The best I could do is this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...44deb5083c27c75

The lack of either one heat sink (cannot play with it), or any ammo (also cannot play with it) makes it seemingly impossible. I'm using the slowest engine with XL, and no armor at all, so I've no idea how it could be put together. I would be interested in an AC20 Locust, but that's impossible without changing game files or something.

Edit: UAC5/LBX10 are both makable, but I would have a tough time making it work myself. The smallest viable build with Locusts and non-mg ballistics is one with AC2, but that's the biggest it can go without being a deathtrap imho.

Edited by luxebo, 12 December 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Varik Ronain, on 12 December 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

I just have to plain disagree with you. Sure not having a tag hinders it some but being able to scrape off any lights that harass you allows you to fire for much longer. The A1 can boat LRM30 salvos and be support from far away AND can counter any light in the game.

So can a C4 running 2x 10 2x 5 + TAG. In fact, the C4 would be far, far superior to 3x LRM/5, despite the minor DPS loss, at killing lights.

The difference in missile turning & tracking alone will more than make up for the mild DPS loss of going from 5s to 10s.

I stand by the A1 is the worst Catapult for LRMs (and the best for SRMs.)

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 December 2013 - 03:26 PM.

[Burke IV]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 December 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

When you get set pong by light mechs is also terrifying and being able to escape or call in help changes the dynamics.

Yeah, running the gauntlet with lights in a missile only mech is exciting alright..

[Nathan Bloodguard]

Well looks like I found a few interesting threads on here that might shed some light on this subject, but doesn't answer all my questions about Tag Artemis and their full interaction with one another (mostly clustering...)

The first thread is the question and the common view by quite a few fellow mechwarriors that also thought the same as me.
http://mwomercs.com/...01-tag-artemis/

This thread has more detail information in regards to their interaction with each other along with some other good tidbits of info.
http://mwomercs.com/...18#entry1936618

Edited by Nathan Bloodguard, 12 December 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Victor Morson]

luxebo, on 12 December 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Koniving, I can't seem to fit it all together to make it happen though. The best I could do is this: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...44deb5083c27c75

The lack of either one heat sink (cannot play with it), or any ammo (also cannot play with it) makes it seemingly impossible. I'm using the slowest engine with XL, and no armor at all, so I've no idea how it could be put together. I would be interested in an AC20 Locust, but that's impossible without changing game files or something.

You know the first time I wasn't accounting for the minimum # of heatsinks. Yeah. The build he keeps talking about being "useful" cannot exist in the game pretty much.

Credibility, it is a fadin'.

Nathan Bloodguard, on 12 December 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

This thread has more detail information in regards to their interaction with each other along with some other good tidbits of info.
http://mwomercs.com/...18#entry1936618

At least this link confirms the only thing I wasn't sure of.

• ArtemisIV will always replace any bonuses from NARC. Even if Artemis does not have line of sight.

So yep. NARC + Artemis doesn't work together, rendering the single worst piece of gear in the game even worse. I was a bit worried I myself had some misinformation on NARCs and why I hadn't brought them up other than to say they're bad (they are no matter what) but I'm glad I did not.

Half the time I think the reason we have these debates is the systems are so screwed up and backwards, people don't want to believe it actually works that way.

That said that second post is straight from the developers that backs my version of how LRM+TAG works.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 December 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Victor Morson]

DONTOR, on 12 December 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

This is a very well put together list. It doesnt however change the fact that LRM boating is the most borng way to play MWO.

I disagree quite a bit. The amount of maneuvering you need to do, not to mention the constant need for awareness of where enemy fast movers are, makes it a lot more of a fun, mobile experience than I think most people think of LRMs.

The irony is half the people claiming I hate fun just want to sit behind a hill and indirect on red lock boxes instead of flinging themselves through the air desperately keeping range and lining up good shots. So yeah, there's a reason LRMs have a bad reputation, but I don't think it's deserved at all.

Just like poptarting with PPCs can get dull, it's not the only way to use them.*

* Poptarting with PPC is about a thousand times more effective than indirect parking with LRMs, though.

luxebo, on 12 December 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Edit: UAC5/LBX10 are both makable, but I would have a tough time making it work myself. The smallest viable build with Locusts and non-mg ballistics is one with AC2, but that's the biggest it can go without being a deathtrap imho.

I still find it amusing that even if they COULD fit this, they think it'd be better than a Commando in any situation. I don't rank Commandos too highly, but come on.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 December 2013 - 03:31 PM.