Jump to content

Lrm Update - March 24

Weapons

775 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM

Just to let you all know that I've been monitoring the LRM change and their performance on the battlefield. Yes... they are a tad fast... but far from "LRMageddon". Next patch the speed will be reduced by 15m/s. I.e. net change will be from 120 to 160 (instead of 175). I'm also reducing the amount of screenshake caused by LRM explosions slightly. (0.35 instead of 0.4)

It was important to watch the speed impact in gameplay for at least a week to see the actual change in overall gameplay. As you may or may not know, I do have the ability to remotely monitor specific and random games being played. I spent a large portion of my time last week monitoring gameplay of players of all Elo ranges. There were some interesting finds to say the least in terms of how players adapted to the speed change.

#2 Darian DelFord

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,234 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:23 AM

First Response :))

Thanks Paul, I still think when you all make changes such as this, its a good idea to throw them up on the Test Server for a day so we can all test and exploit the heck out of it so you all can get great feedback before they hit the live. Is there any plans to have a test server up 24/7 with the advance patch already installed so we can test it before it goes live?

Edited by Darian DelFord, 24 March 2014 - 09:24 AM.


#3 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:27 AM

Thanks for the update. The speed boost was a good thing. As far as farther adjustments, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

#4 Roadbeer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 8,160 posts
  • LocationWazan, Zion Cluster

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:27 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Just to let you all know that I've been monitoring the LRM change and their performance on the battlefield. Yes... they are a tad fast... but far from "LRMageddon". Next patch the speed will be reduced by 15m/s. I.e. net change will be from 120 to 160 (instead of 175). I'm also reducing the amount of screenshake caused by LRM explosions slightly. (0.35 instead of 0.4)

This you can handle in 2 weeks, but over a year and SRMs... nevermind, I'll leave that for someone else to expand on.

View PostPaul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

It was important to watch the speed impact in gameplay for at least a week to see the actual change in overall gameplay. As you may or may not know, I do have the ability to remotely monitor specific and random games being played. I spent a large portion of my time last week monitoring gameplay of players of all Elo ranges. There were some interesting finds to say the least in terms of how players adapted to the speed change.

And yet, the reasons that 84% of your drops have become solo is a mystery :)

#5 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:28 AM

Use your test server not the public servers so you can monitor/get feedback before pushing something to a game that is live...

#6 Trauglodyte

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,373 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:36 AM

Paul, could you have not just bumped up AMS ammo to 2000 rounds per ton and reduced LRM damage from 1.1 per to 1.0 per? The speed of the missiles isn't the problem. It is the amount of people using LRMs right now (which will change when April's patch releases the 3/3/3/3 setup) and the few people using AMS/ECM on top of just piloting poorly.

#7 Lukoi Banacek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • WC 2018 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 4,353 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:40 AM

Your tweaks mirror almost exactly what I put in feedback downstairs and via support ticket. Glad to seea quick and mild/incremental dialing back of these two factors. Hopefully it is of enough impact that the game hits that balance sweetspot.

Edited by Lukoi, 24 March 2014 - 09:40 AM.


#8 CapperDeluxe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,256 posts
  • LocationRTP, NC

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:40 AM

It might be a good idea to change out the Stalker Champion Trial now too, this will at least help a bit with the perception that more people are using it simply because new players are more likely to use LRMs in a Trial.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 24 March 2014 - 09:40 AM.


#9 Tw1stedMonkey

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 303 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:45 AM

All I want is for missiles to actually spread their damage better. With artemis and tag bonus about 75-90% of the missiles fired at a large assault will CT or another single component depending on how you torso twist. That is not an ideal situation. I think making each group of 5 lrms targeting a random "bone" of a mehc like streaks do would go a long way toward culling the complaints about lrms. Frequently I am being hit and losing 40-60 armor in one location with minor if any damage to other parts of my mech from one volley of an enemy team's lrms. I also would like the angles the lrms travel to avoid obstacles to be reduced but I don't know if that will be necessary if they actually spread damage like they should.

#10 PropagandaWar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 2,495 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:46 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Just to let you all know that I've been monitoring the LRM change and their performance on the battlefield. Yes... they are a tad fast... but far from "LRMageddon". Next patch the speed will be reduced by 15m/s. I.e. net change will be from 120 to 160 (instead of 175). I'm also reducing the amount of screenshake caused by LRM explosions slightly. (0.35 instead of 0.4)

It was important to watch the speed impact in gameplay for at least a week to see the actual change in overall gameplay. As you may or may not know, I do have the ability to remotely monitor specific and random games being played. I spent a large portion of my time last week monitoring gameplay of players of all Elo ranges. There were some interesting finds to say the least in terms of how players adapted to the speed change.

Sweet. Goes great with the stat reset. SMH.

#11 Reptilizer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 523 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:47 AM

While i would not have thought the nerf being necessary, i trust Paul on having the better data.
Still it is an improvement for LRMs all in all.
I just hope they stay dangerous for the unwary.
Nothing worse than a shooter without tactical elements. And MWO is seriously lacking in that department.
Viable tactical choices that is...

#12 Ngamok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 5,033 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLafayette, IN

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:55 AM

Should Ideally take them down to 150 m/s TBH. Heck I thought 120 was ok.

View PostGeneral Taskeen, on 24 March 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Use your test server not the public servers so you can monitor/get feedback before pushing something to a game that is live...


I suspect not many people from all Elo ranges will play on it to get an adequate perspective. It's better to let everyone live take them on for a week or two and see how it affects lots of different people.

#13 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 24 March 2014 - 09:59 AM

Singular weapon balance is in a good place. Where MechWarrior breaks is when you can boat several of the same weapon together that all shares the same lock; in the source material in which the numbers for damage come from, each individual weapon system would need a separate roll to determine if that hit.

We got Ghost Heat as a way to directly limit the amount of damage front loaded weapon systems like the PPC could do grouped up. Currently, with the speed change to LRM's, they are in a good spot balance-wise, with the exception that a player providing LRM support from massive "LRM-70" batteries can easily become the top scoring member of a team without needing to remove his 'Mech from defilaide the entire game. This is too rewarding for such low-risk play.

To make indirect fire more difficult, I suggest the following:

Line of Sight vs Spotting lock time: If an LRM boat is receiving targeting data solely from a spotter, the lock time is increased. In Classic Battletech sharing locks was in fact capable without a C3 network despite erroneous claims otherwise - spotting targets and indirect fire is a part of the Battletech universe, but pilots in the spotting 'Mech were suppose to do nothing during the turn of spotting except spot. To reflect this, a Ghost Lock penalty additional lock time can be applied to spotting locks to make it less easy for indirect firing 'Mechs to achieve locks from cover. If a 'Mech is gaining its own targets with direct line of sight, no penalty.

The spotting penalty to lock time could be mitigated of by a spotter using an implemented C3 network. C3 in the source material shared total information throughout a linked lance increased accuracy for long ranged fire based on the distance the spotter was to the target. C3 in MWO could do the same thing with missile locks; currently, a 'Mech has to be targeted for it to be shared if it is outside of line of sight. 'Mechs on a C3 network would be able to target any 'Mech on the spotting 'Mechs radar, regardless of if the spotter has it actively targeted. C3 would decrease lock on time dependent on the location of the spotter to the 'Mech the C3 lancemate is firing on. The closer the spotter, the quicker the lock time. ECM would counter C3, so a spotter would need to run either in counter mode or disable an ECM bubble before transmitting C3 data.

Similar to Ghost Heat, Ghost Lock would also penalize the total number of tubes a 'Mech was capable of firing; an LRM-5 and 10 would have low lock on times, larger racks would have longer. Subsequently, additional racks further increase lock on time, again, with the intent to balance the fact that unlike in the source game where each weapon had to be rolled for individually, we now have a system that lets you rip off 80 missiles for a single lock in a continuous stream.

Ghost lock can also be an effective mechanic for mitigating the massive damage upcoming grouped Clan Streak SRM's can do; the Mad Cat D comes stock with four Streak SRM-6 systems, twice as many as the controversial Streak Cat -- theoretically, the Vulture A can carry six Streak SRM-6 systems or for nearly the same tonnage six LRM-15's; adding additional time per launcher could be a good balancing tool for the superior technology Clan players will get.

TL; DR

The larger the missile rack the longer the lock on time; more missile racks together the longer the lock on time; no line of sight the longer the lock on time.

C3 could be an added mechanic to let LRM's have accurate and quickly locking indirect LRM fire without line of sight, but would increase the risk of spotters and require a tonnage/critical slot requirement.

Ghost Lock could be used to balance Clan LRM's and Streak SRM packs.

Edited by DocBach, 25 March 2014 - 03:16 PM.


#14 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_1
  • 3,534 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:00 AM

Sweet. I'm thinking its still a little to fast but I am a advocate of small changes so this is fine for now, and we can see how things go.

#15 Nryrony

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 427 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:01 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

I spent a large portion of my time last week monitoring gameplay of players of all Elo ranges. There were some interesting finds to say the least in terms of how players adapted to the speed change.


I myself found it curious HOW MAY people suddenly switched to lrms, after "just" adjusting the speed.

But I guess the trial Stalkers played a role in to as well...

#16 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:02 AM

View PostNgamok, on 24 March 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:


I suspect not many people from all Elo ranges will play on it to get an adequate perspective. It's better to let everyone live take them on for a week or two and see how it affects lots of different people.


That is a large part of the reason, relying on the Test Server would not work. It isn't up long enough to get meaningfull data. Personaly, I can't help on the Test Server, because I am off Wednesdays and Thursdays. Also, I can normaly only play at night Central Time.

#17 Kaeseblock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2020 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 258 posts
  • LocationEU / Deutschland

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:05 AM

Nice! Imo 160-165 m/s is probably the best speed for LRMs ^^

#18 Triordinant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,495 posts
  • LocationThe Dark Side of the Moon

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:08 AM

Good call -and I hope you switch out the trial Stalker tomorrow!

#19 Corbon Zackery

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:10 AM

Good reply,

However, the damage has already been done to the community.

I think it would be better if you lowered the missiles back down to 120ms, and warmed up that public test server, and conducted your tests there instead of in a live running open license game.

I will tell you right now. I have no faith in the staffs ability to balance all the new Clan tech that will be going into the game.

I am also out of Premium time so I see you later on when you have sorted all this out.

I encourage everyone else who doesn't have premium time to do the same. We the community shouldn't have to spend weeks on Paul's little pet LRM blunder project being his lab rats.

Edited by Corbon Zackery, 24 March 2014 - 10:13 AM.


#20 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 24 March 2014 - 10:14 AM

I will dial back my feelings and just say I am severely disappointed we did not give the LRM buff more than 5 days before it was decided to do this. Why didn't we wait 2-3 weeks so we could see if the community would actually adapt?

Will AMS's buff be dialed back or will it continue to chew up even more LRMs SRMs and Streaks than it did before because of more time given to do damage? (I believe 5-6 will now be average per volley compared to 4-5) and SRMs are still even more usless thanks to that defensive buff since they are also shot up by AMS.

Again, I'm severely disappointed at backing away from something that was encouraging smarter play more viable options in PUGs and 12mans.

I can see that the poptart community is breathing a huge sigh of relief because they will remain uncontested kings of the battlefield.

Edited by Kjudoon, 24 March 2014 - 10:17 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users