775 replies to this topic

[Fut]

Will LRMs need to be re-buffed once the next phase of missile defense is introduced?

Quote

Advanced Anti-Missile System : Chaff
-A sphere of metallic particles is launched around the mech, expanding to its full diameter of [30m] in 0.5s.
-For 5s sec the stationary sphere will intercept a lower amount of missiles over time. 100% first 2s, 80% next sec, etc.
-Due to timeline infringements this system is up in the air at this time but could be ready for deployment at any time. That is up to the space-time continuum to figure out.


Advanced Missile Warning System Module
-When equipped this module will allow a pilot to know the distance and possibly vector to the nearest missile threat.
-We are still slinging around ideas on how to best show this to a pilot but have narrowed it down to a few possibilities.

Although I'm glad to see the Devs tweaking things, it seems a little premature to be dialing back the LRMs aleady, especially when there are more anti-missiles systems coming to the game in the future.

[Semper Fi]

Thanks for that clarification Paul.

Several suggestions could work. I think the speed kept poptarters and lights in check. 160 might still.
Change LRMs to be more spread out when they hit a mech like someone else said, should go a long way.

My group adapted by adding AMS to all mechs, and 2 ECM mechs. (Yeah evil Premades), but without the changes we died just as much as anyone else.

I did not see lights running up the middle to square off against 2 lances. (once but I was drinking.).
The changes were good, some tweaking needed, but 3/3/3/3 will also impact all meta's. (then 3/3/3/3 is OP)

I do agree with other people Paul, give it another week, or maybe till Monday or something, see the adaptations happen. Poptarters will have to adapt, brawlers will have to adapt, lights will have to adapt. When they do, you will see fewer boats.

One other thing, make it less C-bills and EXP/XP for killing with LRMs. .. That should cause a riot.

Semper Fi

Edited by Semper Fi, 24 March 2014 - 11:24 AM.

[VXJaeger]

Also adjust trajectory so that when shot to spotted target, they arrive at lower angle.
Same flight path neither shot to LOS nor spotted target, right now terrain cannot be used as cover if there's spotter anywhere near.

[Janus Orworth]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

• Lower Elo players adapted to the changes much faster than the higher Elo players.

Maybe it has something to do with my being a foureyes (like this here guy => ) but I still fail to comprehend what this statement actually means. Please show mercy on the handicapped and clarify this point.

[o0cipher0o]

Good. Even as a LRMs user i felt that they where a bit too fast (even thought they where nowhere near some whiners proclaimed). Maybe a little buff tho the AMS ammos per ton would also be good, together with a better spread of the damage. I'm killed and i'm killing too easily with CT destruction using LRMs, both using artemis and not.

Other than this, they're pretty good.

[Michaelson Snow]

Hah! Lower Elo adapted quicker and better? that should tell you something about the "high Elo" willingness to adapt. they have had their meta for so long.............

As someone has already said, opinions will vary and are entitled, however, personally, I am pulling the same numbers from my brawlers I was before, better numbers with my LRM boats(as to be expected). the small tweak will hopefully calm some of the hurt feelings out there but I think it is too soon, and also should take the new 3,3,3,3 setup in account. The new drop setup will eliminate a lot of his "BIG Boating" LRM problem.

[Khobai]

1) LRM speed was fine. 175m/s was not too fast at all. PPCs go 1500m/s. If we can deal with PPCs going that fast we can deal with LRMs going a fraction that speed.

2) LRM screenshake was the major problem. Im glad to see the impulse is being lowered. But lowering the speed makes no sense to me. Why couldnt we just try them at 175m/s with lower impulse? I suspect just lowering the impulse from 0.4 to 0.25 wouldve been enough to fix them (0.35 is still too high IMO).

Edited by Khobai, 24 March 2014 - 11:27 AM.

[Ultimax]

Thanks for the information Paul.

Tw1stedMonkey, on 24 March 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

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 hope Paul watches for a week and takes a look at this part.

In some limited testing, 9/10 target dummies lost their CT before other components even went orange from 500m out.

The new, 160m/s, speed might alleviate this - but I have a feeling they will still be hitting CT very very heavily with no amount of flailing about actually helping to spread the damage (this hasn't seemed to work for me in actual matches).

[Modo44]

You forgot to give LRMs the streak spread on the final approach. LRM5/LRM10 should really not be more potent than LRM15/LRM20.

[Jin Ma]

Thank god for nerfs

[mogs01gt]

I agree with the shake reduction but I like their current speed.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Janus Orworth, on 24 March 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Maybe it has something to do with my being a foureyes (like this here guy => ) but I still fail to comprehend what this statement actually means. Please show mercy on the handicapped and clarify this point.

Its simple. Lower elo players(could be old and new players) don't really have damage specific builds and therefore when it comes to changing their mech around and adding AMS and maybe 3-4 tons ammo. It wont be a problem because they will generally accept being able to change their build to work around the added systems.

High elo players are the ones who run damage specific(i'm talking high DPS) are more reluctant because a change can mean they wont be able to produce the results or at least think their mech wont preform as good if they reduce ammo count, remove a heat sink, downgrade a weapon(ex. Large to med, AC 10 to 5). So generally they don't adapt well. Or try to compensate a little by adding AMS and say 1-2 tons.

That's just a observations, some clarity would be helpful

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 24 March 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[Solahma]

Fut, on 24 March 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Will LRMs need to be re-buffed once the next phase of missile defense is introduced?



Although I'm glad to see the Devs tweaking things, it seems a little premature to be dialing back the LRMs aleady, especially when there are more anti-missiles systems coming to the game in the future.

Agree, but at least they can always increase the speed again after these anti-missile stystems are included in the game. We don't have them and haven't been told exactly when to expect them, so mine as well tone things down until they are available to us.

[Appogee]

Well played, PGI.

[VagGR]

Khobai, on 24 March 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

1) LRM speed was fine. 175m/s was not too fast at all. PPCs go 1500m/s. If we can deal with PPCs going that fast we can deal with LRMs going a fraction that speed.

2) LRM screenshake was the major problem. Im glad to see the impulse is being lowered. But lowering the speed makes no sense to me. Why couldnt we just try them at 175m/s with lower impulse? I suspect just lowering the impulse from 0.4 to 0.25 wouldve been enough to fix them (0.35 is still too high IMO).

yes because PPCs lock on track you and can be fired behind hills...

[Prezimonto]

Appogee, on 24 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

It's not the speed, it's the boating.

You nerfed the boating of other weapons like PPCs. You desynced the Gauss.

Now nerf the LRM boating and we're fine.

Varied loadouts should be encouraged vs min/maxed loadouts.

I think the simplest thing to do is have large launchers fire in 5 packs. Ghost heat takes care of multiple launchers.
LRM 05 fires 5
LRM 10 fires 5x5
LRM 15 fires 5x5x5
LRM 20 fires 5x5x5x5

This normalizes flights to the smallest value, making changes to LRMs roughtly equally affect ALL LRM systems small and large.

It increases the time to kill for large launchers by a few seconds.

It gives AMS more time to work on large flights.

It stacks with Ghost heat. Small launchers are largely unaffected, but any pair of launchers over LRM5's now behave like waves of LRM10's or the suffer ghost heat, making for fewer shots before over heat.

To compensate: give mechs that have the proper tubes for the launcher (20 tubes for LRM20) a small break in the heat generated when fired without ghost heat conditions, as they're not firing more missiles out of the same tubes. This encourages players to use smaller launchers that are fit for their mech, and it gives a direct benefit to the small handful of mechs that are supposed to be dedicated missile platforms.

[VXJaeger]

BLOOD WOLF, on 24 March 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Its simple. Lower elo players(could be old and new players) don't really have damage specific builds and therefore when it comes to changing their mech around and adding AMS and maybe 3-4 tons ammo. It wont be a problem because they will generally accept being able to change their build to work around the added systems.

High elo players are the ones who run damage specific(i'm talking high DPS) are more reluctant because a change can mean they wont be able to produce the results or at least think their mech wont preform as good if they reduce ammo count, remove a heat sink, downgrade a weapon(ex. Large to med, AC 10 to 5). So generally they don't adapt well. Or try to compensate a little by adding AMS and say 1-2 tons.

That's just a observations, some clarity would be helpful

Or then HE-players have seen this kinda fuckups before, and don't bother to change their playstyle 'cause they know that it's pretty much useless. One patch and all that energy used on learning PGI style LRM-hide'n seek is wasted. Again.

[dwwolf]

Ultimatum X, on 24 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Thanks for the information Paul.




I hope Paul watches for a week and takes a look at this part.

In some limited testing, 9/10 target dummies lost their CT before other components even went orange from 500m out.

The new, 160m/s, speed might alleviate this - but I have a feeling they will still be hitting CT very very heavily with no amount of flailing about actually helping to spread the damage (this hasn't seemed to work for me in actual matches).

They should implement the Btech missile table + hit chart and only track the whole missile cloud per launcher for LRMs and MRMs, imagine the server trying to keep up with MRM 40s.......

Edited by dwwolf, 24 March 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[mau5trap]

Paul Inouye, on 24 March 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

About the reason why the slight nerf? Had nothing to do with the outcry... it was the monitoring of games and seeing the impact on the various types of gameplay that was observed.

Paul,

I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to see that PGI is finally planning to do something about the LRM madness out there. I would have liked to see this concession made last Thursday or even Friday after 2 to 3 solid days of data collection. However, the proposed change is a good first step in the right direction and I wait patiently to see how LRMs will perform at the reduced rate of 160kph vs the current LRMageddon 175kph speed.

As an experienced player, I quickly adapted from my old play style to LRM boating and finally to driving a NARC equipped Raven 3L. Saturday evening I had at least 10 consecutive wins (stopped counting when the flash card on my video recorder filled up) all due to NARC + LRMs. It was crazy fun just watching the red team melt away. Hopefully the LRM speed reduction will plug this exploit and prevent me from giggling uncontrollably as I watch LRM boats rip apart the targets I NARC’d.


In case you did not experience the weekend carnage first hand, this video is a great example of the NARC + LRM exploit. Watch as the match opens with a spider downed in 17 seconds by LRMs followed by the rest of the enemy team. Ouch!





_

Edited by mau5trap, 24 March 2014 - 11:38 AM.

[Appogee]

(oops, double post)

Edited by Appogee, 24 March 2014 - 11:38 AM.