605 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

No matter what we do, there will always be weapons that favor certain targets over others. No shooter out on the market doesn't run into situations where certain weapons / abilities are exponentially more effective against certain classes / hero's / titan's / etc. compared to others. The trick is to allow for options that allow for a dynamic give and take between the different factors. Our game is no different. While streaks will almost always be more effective vs. Lights then other targets due to their mechanics, on the flip side, lights themselves have their own options such as mass Machine guns that are much more effective against slower, more stationary heavy / assault 'Mechs then they are against faster lights.

Where I come in is always going to come down to how extreme is that divide? And how easy is it to achieve effective results in those extreme situations? In the case of SSRMs I would argue their current state is too easy to achieve for their effectiveness against lighter targets. Which in addition to the many things we brought up about LRMs feed into the team's decision to close the Artemis "loophole" for streak launchers, as well as tightening the lock-on angle for both LRMs and Streaks in the upcoming August patch, which will directly affect SSRMs ease of use against lighter targets. Against high skill players, closing the Artemis loophole will at a minimum give you an extra second to react to a Streak boat, even when accounting for perfect aim on their end. While the tighter angles to hold and maintain locks will make it more difficult for them to acquire + maintain locks against you.

But make no mistake, they will still be a highly effective weapon against lighter targets provided the player can both acquire and maintain a lock under the more restrictive conditions. We will have to see how far these changes move the dial in this regard before considering if further steps are needed. But like everything else, we always have our eye on some of the more extreme counter options out there.

So the Artemis Loophole is addressed for Streaks? Well okay. Streak-Boats have been super annoying. But maybe GH Heat penalty (as in the amount of heat added) should also be increased?

But be that as it may, the LRMs just don't deserve any more nerfs. If team is willing to tweak mechanics, maybe implementing LOS bonuses on LRMs could be done (As apparently LOS Bonuses with Artemis wasn't really there) as well? The engine is capable of filtering out targets with LOS that results into them being locked or breaking locks. This should be possible right?

It would be a very very very big help to LRM if it reduces 35% spread and +65% track strength when we have LOS. Having the LOS factor is important, this allows the LRMs to be buffed for Direct-Fire, but leave the Indirect-Fire and thereby the focus-fire be retained.

Good LRM boats get their own locks, that's the teaching of the veterans and that is how they use it. Having the LOS bonus would be something to buff LRMs without making the Indirect-Fire focus-fire powerful while answering the cries of the veterans. With LRMs less of a deadweight when used Direct-Fire, salt will only be applied to terrible LRM boats that frequently do not get their own locks, it would be less being the weapon's fault and more of the player's poor choices.

Personally I prefer NARC/TAG only IDF, but maybe LOS bonus instead would pique others' interest.

EDIT:

Now that i think about it, wouldn't it be overkill to both reduce the homing cone and increase the lock-duration?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2018 - 10:50 PM.

[GoatHILL]

This all started with the IS laser nerfs. Mainly the cooldown nerfs especially to Med lasers. IS had DPS that countered the Clan poke laser play very well. IS laser alpha in general is 40 points or below the only way to be effective with the lower alpha is with DPS.

The Clans had/have high alpha but were not good in close sustained fights unless they fired their lasers in smaller groups. The IS laser mechs would press the Clan mech trying to force them to overheat while they pecked away at them.

The Clans had a sledgehammer the IS a rapier it was balance pretty well IMO outside of the few @100 alpha mechs.

[Davegt27]

people have been crying about streaks since I joined the game in 2014

how about this idea why don't you remove Streaks from the game

that would eliminate people crying about streaks

[Chados]

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2018 - 10:34 PM, said:

Now that i think about it, wouldn't it be overkill to both reduce the homing cone and increase the lock-duration?

I have been saying this for the last three or four pages and no response. His mind is made up.

[Laser Kiwi]

i have driven 4 K2's into a faction play game and gotten a decent performance out of them and i'm average. But to say they are TANKY is weird, maybe a bit true cause i become slightly more tanky when the ears fall off and my profile goes down.

BUT

the K2 has ridiculous pitch angle issues, a slight rise renders them incapable of exchanging with the enemy AND

It has 6 hardpoints, 2 ballistic and 4 energy, its not really scaring anyone with that amount of firepower now is it and the armour and hit boxes aren't that good. I don't really understand why you'd even bother mentioning the K2 as it is almost a non entity, i can play all night and not see one.

[Jonathan8883]

Chris, I'm pretty sure Streak lock-on cones were tightened several months ago. I run a streak+narc Arctic Wolf, and it's very easy to lose locks just in the course of my dodging and movements. Making streaks even less user-friendly (which disproportionately includes less noob-friendly) is going to make them less-suited for fast-movers, and more suited only for heavies and assaults that aren't moving much. This will hit mediums (Bushwhacker, Arctic Wolf, Shadow Cat, Huntsman, etc.) and weaken an already risky style of play.

[Khobai]

Davegt27, on 11 August 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

people have been crying about streaks since I joined the game in 2014

how about this idea why don't you remove Streaks from the game

that would eliminate people crying about streaks

if PGI removed everything people have been crying about since 2014 there would be no weapons left in the game.

people crying about something is simply not a good enough reason to remove it.

streaks definitely should not be removed from the game. however they do need to be made less effective against lights and more effective against heavies/assaults. that would make streaks less lopsided as a weapon system.

And Im still not a big fan of PGI nerfing artemis. If theyre going to nerf artemis spread and lockon time, they should at least give artemis a missile crit chance buff. similar to what the targeting computer does for ballistics. They cant just make artemis weaker without giving it something in return, or it simply becomes not worth using.

Edited by Khobai, 11 August 2018 - 06:38 AM.

[R5D4]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

No matter what we do, there will always be weapons that favor certain targets over others. No shooter out on the market doesn't run into situations where certain weapons / abilities are exponentially more effective against certain classes / hero's / titan's / etc. compared to others. The trick is to allow for options that allow for a dynamic give and take between the different factors. Our game is no different. While streaks will almost always be more effective vs. Lights then other targets due to their mechanics, on the flip side, lights themselves have their own options such as mass Machine guns that are much more effective against slower, more stationary heavy / assault 'Mechs then they are against faster lights.

Where I come in is always going to come down to how extreme is that divide? And how easy is it to achieve effective results in those extreme situations? In the case of SSRMs I would argue their current state is too easy to achieve results for their effectiveness against lighter targets. Which in addition to the many things we brought up about LRMs feed into the team's decision to close the Artemis "loophole" for streak launchers, as well as tightening the lock-on angle for both LRMs and Streaks in the upcoming August patch, which will directly affect SSRMs ease of use against lighter targets. Against high skill players, closing the Artemis loophole will at a minimum give you an extra second to react to a Streak boat, even when accounting for perfect aim on their end. While the tighter angles to hold and maintain locks will make it more difficult for them to acquire + maintain locks against you.

But make no mistake, they will still be a highly effective weapon against lighter targets provided the player can both acquire and maintain a lock under the more restrictive conditions. We will have to see how far these changes move the dial in this regard before considering if further steps are needed. But like everything else, we always have our eye on some of the more extreme counter options out there.

Thanks for the response.

I'll be interested to see what results from the August changes and if it gives the Light class a better chance against SSRMs than they currently have today. I do think it's unfortunate though that SSRMs aren't viable against heavier chassis -- this can lead to the perception among Light players that Light Mechs are being "unfairly" targeted by a specific weapon type. I don't feel that Machine Guns suffer this same issue as machine guns aren't just effective against assaults they are viable against all weight classes (<< I remember the days when this wasn't the case ) because of their crit rate neutralizing weapons leaving pretty much every weight class leary of them.

The trouble of course being what could you do to buff SSRMs against heavier Mechs without also buffing them against Lights? I don't really have an answer for this.

[Khobai]

R5D4, on 11 August 2018 - 06:52 AM, said:

The trouble of course being what could you do to buff SSRMs against heavier Mechs without also buffing them against Lights? I don't really have an answer for this.

Maybe they could add a new attribute like "armor piercing" that gives weapons a damage bonus based on the tonnage of the target.

that would allow PGI to decrease the base damage of streaks. and the damage of streaks would scale up linearly based on the tonnage of whatever theyre attacking.

Its kindve a janky solution, but its still better than nerfing streaks into obsolescence.


theres other balancing applications for something like armor piercing too. like clan gauss could be 12 damage + 0-3 armor piercing damage instead of flat out 15 damage. (so against a 100 ton mech youd get the full +3 bonus but it would scale down linearly for targets of lower tonnage). Clan gauss needs to have a downside for being 3 tons lighter.

And standard autocannons could gain bonus armor piercing damage to make them more palatable vs UACs.

Edited by Khobai, 11 August 2018 - 07:16 AM.

[Chados]

What this is, is a return to the old Paulconomy days. Traditional PGI balance-by-sledgehammer, without regard for history, with no consideration of why things are as they are.

In 2016, ECM got nerfed. ECM got nerfed because it was an invincible blanket over an entire team that could be maintained by just one or two mechs, that in combination with radar deprivation modules essentially invalidated the use of AMS and missiles. Back then we had a lock cone twice the size Chris is now mandating, no skill tree, and Artemis with better spread, lock timing, and tracking strength bonuses than we presently have. Yet Chris, in his wisdom, has dome decreed that ye SHALT be saved from the Imperious Scourge of the Streakboat in only one way: Ye shalt RETURN THE INVINCIBLE DEITY BOX! But wait, that’s not all. To be absolutely sure that no one other than LRM-80 spuds hiding 800 meters from the fight dare to equip locking missiles, we have to drop the lock cone to under half its 2016 size and make sure that Artemis isn’t worth its tonnage-it already lost the spread advantage it used to have, and now it is losing its tracking bonus and lock time advantages.

So, either Paul was wrong to nerf ECM in 2016, or Chris has no institutional memory? No, they’re sledgehammer balancing by dartboard again, that’s the only logical explanation.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

No matter what we do, there will always be weapons that favor certain targets over others. No shooter out on the market doesn't run into situations where certain weapons / abilities are exponentially more effective against certain classes / hero's / titan's / etc. compared to others. The trick is to allow for options that allow for a dynamic give and take between the different factors. Our game is no different. While streaks will almost always be more effective vs. Lights then other targets due to their mechanics, on the flip side, lights themselves have their own options such as mass Machine guns that are much more effective against slower, more stationary heavy / assault 'Mechs then they are against faster lights.

Where I come in is always going to come down to how extreme is that divide? And how easy is it to achieve effective results in those extreme situations? In the case of SSRMs I would argue their current state is too easy to achieve results for their effectiveness against lighter targets. Which in addition to the many things we brought up about LRMs feed into the team's decision to close the Artemis "loophole" for streak launchers, as well as tightening the lock-on angle for both LRMs and Streaks in the upcoming August patch, which will directly affect SSRMs ease of use against lighter targets. Against high skill players, closing the Artemis loophole will at a minimum give you an extra second to react to a Streak boat, even when accounting for perfect aim on their end. While the tighter angles to hold and maintain locks will make it more difficult for them to acquire + maintain locks against you.

But make no mistake, they will still be a highly effective weapon against lighter targets provided the player can both acquire and maintain a lock under the more restrictive conditions. We will have to see how far these changes move the dial in this regard before considering if further steps are needed. But like everything else, we always have our eye on some of the more extreme counter options out there.

That doesn't mean you should keep unfun mechanics or class counters that are of varying degrees of capability or power. What about Streaks benefiting from shared locks? Sure you can't hit a mech until its exposed but you can fire immediately once the light does expose itself. Machine guns at least require a light to get butt hugging close to do anything (though MGs are also a bit unfun with their crits) which at least in coordinated environments is risky to do until the match has practically been decided.

Then there is the problem of effectiveness against different targets, streaks are worthless against heavies and assaults but MGs are still useful against lights. Lock on and crit mechanics have been problematic since day one. It feels crappy when you have all your weapons blown out of your torso yet you only have yellow internals, and lock on mechanics makes focus fire in lower tiers too easy while shared locks can counter the lock time disadvantage of streaks making them better than they should against lights.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 August 2018 - 08:13 AM.

[Ridingwolf1]

Metachanic, on 09 August 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

Saying that you don't want one problem solved because another problem exists strikes me as counter-productive. Even if the sequence doesn't fit your preferences, why the objections to addressing one of the game's major struggles?

Because until addressing the gulf in player skill is addressed, the data itself that PGI is running off of is invalid. As has been stated by myself, Proton, a dozen other people in this thread, and hundreds of other people over the years.

To summarize: You CAN'T balance weapon issues with data derived from players that can aim shooting at players standing still for several seconds. I demonstrate this daily in my stream as does Proton and other streamers. Laser vomit is overpowered right now because there are entirely too many people in matches that just stand still and play turret warrior online.

To expand on this idea from my initial post: This perspective comes from the mind of a research scientist who does macro and data analysis daily.....when not laid out flat on my back from surgeries.

First, I think LRMs and lasers are in a decent place. I don't think any of the ideas discussed in the podcast will resolve the current player issues because the issues are not based solely on data points but a more macro idea and this is player skill. As already pointed out, no matter what happens to either, the skilled player is going to still perform at the same level.

I propose a macro level idea to solves both issues, in my mind anyway, and that is this:

Remove win/loss from PSR calculation at the end of matches.
Reset PSR, everyone starts over at T5.

These two combined should allow for skilled players to progress the way their own skill allows them to progress as opposed to the experience bar the tier system currently is. I can't express enough how disheartening it is to work your butt of in a match and not only be top of your team but top four for both teams, then lose and get an = for PSR. I have gotten and witnessed others getting top damage for teams and/or top match score while PSR calculation gave them an =. Match score, through various awards for lance in formation, ECM, etc etc, should provide all the teamwork bonus, not an additional variable based on the team that wins or loses. Along the same lines, someone that is on a winning team but gets a match score of 40 shouldn't bet an = or even ^ because they got carried. Low scores like this happen less frequently for high skilled players than it does for low skilled players and thus should balance out both the weapons themselves and the issues in MM.

Secondly, instead of number crunching to find a balance for weapon systems, again because the entire discussion devolves down to personal skill, look at what the complaints and where the complaints are taking place. From my perspective, it is happening on certain maps most notably Grim Plexus, Polar Highlands, and Caustic Valley. I can't vouch for difficulties on Grim Plexus when facing LRMs, but I can for Polar Highlands and Caustic Valley. For both I suggest a deepening of the trenches and adding more vertical rock features to hide from them.

Finally, a micro data crunching idea for LRMs is, again based on my own personal analysis, is a debuff to the number of missiles hitting, that can't be overcome by the addition of narc or other tools, when the target is not visualized by the pilot. The chief complaint from people about LRM boats isn't so much the LRMs themselves, it is the complete refusal to participate in the team, as victory is totally dependent upon communication and teamwork. Having 2, 3, 4, and sometimes 5 mechs avoiding the battle zone by 600-700 or more yards is demoralizing, especially when the majority of them are going to be heavy and assault mechs. Not having THAT much tonnage near the front line is death for teams.

Said by Inviictus: -Clan Boogeymen... what about players who stand still while getting shot?

Further demonstrated here by me: You are so focused on the numbers and not what the issue is at heart and that is skill. You are trying to balance an intangible with weapon buffs/nerfs which ignores the issue at hand. As was said in the pod cast and repeated here many times by people in the thread, skilled pilots will still win against bad pilots regardless of what balance you try.

The issue, therefore, is NOT the weapon systems, but the people using them. Putting T5 skill level pilots that made it to T1 by attrition in with T1 pilots that are true T1 pilots will always result in these issues you are having. No amount of weapon balance will fix this.

You need to overhaul the matchmaker/PSR system or else nothing else you try has a chance at working.

Elizander further said: I feel that the argument about deleting someone is lacking different perspectives and is only a case for a 50 ton mech being destroyed by a 90 ton mech from fresh via CT kill when it is not twisting.
4x SRM6 can instantly delete a lot of mechs from behind if it is close enough. I've done this a lot on my Griffin 2N.
Headshots with PPFLD can delete mechs who stand still or shut down. I've had other players intentionally try to get headshots on me if I was standing still too much.
Having one single heavy gauss rifle can delete a fresh Flea.
Going strictly with math, a 96 point laser alpha strike that is not twisted within the 1+ second burn is not enough to kill a 55 ton mech without crits. A 55 ton mech with no quirks to armor or structure will have 104 total HP to blow out the CT assuming you go extreme with like 4 back armor. Even with 10 back armor it's still 98 hp to 96 damage. We are talking about a 90 ton mech doing this to a non-moving 55 ton mech. Anything bigger will have even more health to survive without twisting.

02Homer02 stated: I think they should fix match maker before they balance anything.

aka in Solo Queue T1 should mean something, just not number of games played

In FW, maybe give FW two queues:
One called Frontline for groups and T1 and T2 solo's, this que affects the IS Meta map
Second Que called Militia vs Garrision for T3,T4 and T5 solo's which does not affect the IS meta map

(before each faction had a queue think 7 adding the solo ques doubled dat, tell me if I'm wrong.)

Only once the skill divide is sorted, should balance be discussed as you are building your balance on a weak foundation.

Proton said: This is not a problem of weapon system or loadout this or that mech is using. 80% of the time players are getting *DELETED/REDACTED* by laser vomit because they simply stop moving and keep staring at the target for a duration of ~10 seconds w/o making a move or twist torso. Quad LBX mechs *DELETING* stationary mechs easily, does that need nerf? UAC boats, Heavy Gauss/Las Vomit, SRMs(if registered), AC40... ANYTHING WILL DELETE mechs that pretending they are a turret.

LRMs. You buffed the velocity, Fine. You looking for increasing cooldown on Narc, why?. If you do, than bring ECM to the point we had it 2 years ago, make single AMS worth it without making me run triple/quadriple ams mechs which are mostly have firepower of a potato cause weapons systems like LPLs/SPLs etc are nerfed due to one single mech being able to boat lots of them. There is literally no counter for LRMs on maps like polar, alpines specificaly unless you get lucky with teammates having DOZENS of ECM/AMS and staying together most of the time, if none of that is on your team and you are in the brawler/midrange, have fun... Now imagine if you have a light mech narcing constantly the enemy team that has 0 ams or ecm... Again, if you do that, make AMS/ECM WORTH IT.

The DATA you guys are refering to DOES NOT SHOWING A TRUE PICTURE of what exactly happening in the game. Go around the streams on twitch, play the game more often yourself, you will see the true image of the game balance state right now.

No one wants to get salty, but recent changes and direction you guys took are causing that inevitably for the majority of players in MWO. So many people tried to help you guys with making the game fun, but most of them wasted their time cause simply most of the suggestions got ignored multiple times.

You guys are seeing the game from the depth of it most of the time, but you have to come out on the surface much more often where we are EXPERIENCING the game AS A PLAYERS.

Lurm God stated: The pilots most commonly deleted are of a lower calibre. No matter how hard you try I don't think you can balance around a variable skill level. Half the players I see in the game are flat out keeping an assault locked with lrms while standing still. This is likely why your LRM statistics are so misguided.

We are here to help you if you want to use some players (of a high calibre) you trust and share our experience and recommendations with you. I get that a lot of them are salty but there are many who are still not and remain open minded. Someone like my leader in 228 is a good example of such a pilot.

Reading Matt's run down of the podcast makes it sound like you are still not able to utilise much of a targeted approach to groups of weapons. In essence I see no way around the fact that you cannot simply target a 94 alpha. At a certain point do you say we will only tweak before worlds and once worlds client is up and locked, plan a balance remodel that might be radical but at least an easier way to deal with issues? In other games sometimes if the baseline is broken and the meta exploited you wait for important events to clear and radicalise the game and create a new base balance.

People are pissed it seems with the lack of understanding with the people in charge of the game and balance. I myself have felt this way as some of it truly boggles the mind, but if you have a vision stop please treading water, just do it. Don't tease us or renege because its making the team appear confused and pointing at each other from our perspective.

Final part if someone is of an important role for PGI can they stop memeing and antagonising us it is very embarrassing and just looks unprofessional. If you want to redact that please just this paragraph but pull your head in mate we all know who I am talking about.

Do I need to keep going to show you more of why "looking at numbers and mechanics is going to end in failure?"

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 11 August 2018 - 08:07 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:

The problem is those things, while nice, don't actively contribute to combat or winning games (unless your looking exclusively at LRM's and ATM's.) And in the Missile weapon's case, it actively gets in the way of self acquired locks for things like LRM's and ATM's for Heavies and Assaults. Which means that unless you have a dedicated support 'Mech to spot for you, your LRM weapon tonnage effectively sits like a useless brick in your build, which simply is not fun to play. Especially in solo queue where you can't control the team mates you get. So it becomes a fairly niche role application unless we change it to what other games do and make physical LOS dependent on sensor detection. But even then, those mechanics are often very divisive in the games that do utilize them and doesn't really fit into a game defined by walking robots the size of 2-3 story buildings.

The core gameplay in MWO is always going to revolve around 'Mech combat first. So as a generality, Lights and Mediums still have to be able to actively contribute to the fight and be able to stand toe to toe against heavier 'Mechs in direct combat situations in their own way. Otherwise we simply run into the problem where they do a neat little trick, but it doesn't actively contribute to your team actually winning the match. Which in turn feeds into a notion that if your team is in a skirmish match and each team is at 11, 11, the team with the heavier 'Mech is the instant favorite to win the match so why play lighter 'Mechs at all? That latter issue was one of the issues we had when I first started on the team where the team with the one KDK 3 or the Maruder IIC Scorch at the end was at a distinct advantage to the teams with even 2 to 3 mid-tonned medium IS 'Mechs in skirmish matches.

So basically, if a full class of 'Mechs cannot be an active participant towards tangibly winning the match compared to heavier options, then it becomes an issue for us, because then you run into that age old problem of "no one likes to play support." Especially if half of your overall 'Mech roster is going to be 55 tons and under. Its just too much of the overall 'Mech roster being put in positions where they are immediately seen as inferior to other, often heavier, options when it comes to tangible contributions to the match that results in a win.

With that said though, that is just talking about everything in the widest general sense. When it comes to individual 'Mechs, this is something I would love to push for more of. On that front, I've finally received permission to try out a new baseline 'Mech quirk in a big way to push for one particular 'Mech to be much more focused on the "Objective Play" angle to still contribute to a match's win conditions. It's very much more of a niche quirk, but we'll see how well it works at improving the overall role for that particular 'Mech come August patch.

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

While I wasn't on the team at the time, I remember as a player how much the laser lock-on PTS was received. And even in these cases, you still run into the issue where the Lights and Mediums are there to provide locks to "damage boost" the more heavily armed Heavies and Assaults. (As they would inevitably benefit the most from the locks in the first place.) And not really do damage themselves.

I'm not against pushing for more info warfare or other avenues to provide more role based incentives to take lighter 'Mechs, but at the end of the day, they need to be seen as equally viable to contributing to a win in a Skirmish game mode match as their heavier counterparts so whatever we do provide them has to be able to directly contribute to that goal. At least when your looking across the wider tonnage range as a generality. Which is a key point that anchors many of the changes we examine.

As I mentioned before, the InfoWar PTS was one of the big opportunities that could easily change the gameplay, mostly for long range (missiles) and the light/med vs heavy/assault mech balance/feel.

The only downside you had on that PTS was that:
a.) the Laser dmg without lock -> while interesting idea, it was too much on top of the big change that the sensors had
b.) there was no skill tree that could counter the problem you describe (bold part).
With proper skill tree to support a LRM/ATM long range loadout, there is no reason not to implement some form of InfoWarfare.

So, question here, if this is going in a direction you want to consider:
Let's take a look again at the (original or new) InfoWar changes and see if this is improving the gameplay and everyone is interested in such a change.
To sum it up (mostly from the InfoWar PTS, some changes with Skills)
->
1. Sensor Strength (your targeting base distance) dependent on weight with some baseline as mentioned Lights = 1000m
Meds = 800m
Heavies = 600m
Assault = 500

2. Sensor Profile (your mechs profile - how easy it is to track) dependent on weight/size you are faster/easier to target (targeting info) and lock-on (missiles)
e.g.
Lights = base of 3s targeting delay, 6s target info speed, 2s default missile lock speed
Meds = base of 2.2s targeting delay, 5.2s target info speed, 1.6s default missile lock speed
Heavy = base of 1.5s targeting delay, 4.5s target info speed, 1.2s default missile lock speed
Assault = base of 1s targeting delay, 4s target info speed, 1s default missile lock speed

3. Command Console/Targeting Computer/C3 affecting Sensor Strength stats

4. ECM (see InfoWar PTS) no longer being a on-off lock counter, but just manipulating the above stats. (e.g. 50% reduced lock on speed)

5. Skill tree skills and Quirks for the above

6. Scouting, Narc and Tag instantly gain more relevance


Let's check an example Stalker with LRMs and ERLL vs an Raven with ECM
Stalker Sensor Range: base of 500m
Stalker Skill Points: used to get +50% sensor range (up from current max of +35%)
Stalker Quirk: with +10% sensor range
Stalker total Sensor Range = 500m * 160% = 800m
vs
Raven Sensor Profile: base of 3s targeting delay, 6s target info speed, 2s default missile lock speed (example for a light mech target)
Raven ECM: base effect of 25% reduced Sensor Profile
Raven Skill Points: used to reduce target profile by 15%
Raven Quirk: with -10% Sensor Profile
Raven total Sensor Profile = basic stats + 50% duration = 4.5s targeting delay, 9s target info speed, 3s missile lock speed

Now let's add a Phenix Hawk with sensor skills as a team member of the Stalker to see if the Stalkers missile lock on that Ravens low profile could be improved:
Phenix Hawk Skill Points: used for Targeting Speed 50% (new) and Target Information Gathering +50% (up from current max of 35%) and 50% Missile Lock Speed (new)
Phenix Hawk Quirks: with +10% on TS, TIG, MLS (same as skills)
Phenix Hawk total targeting speed on the Raven = 50% of the basic stats (Raven totals) - 60% duration = 1.8s targeting delay, 3.6s target info speed, 1.2s missile lock speed (for the Phenix Hawk)
and through shared targeting the Stalker would get the target instantly after the Phawk, but keeps it's 3s missile lock speed (as this does not change from spotting).
Buf it the PHawk uses a TAG, the Lock speed would improve also.

(edited for more details)
Optionally even DHS vs SHS or XL vs STD engine and Ferro/Endo vs STD could change your mechs profile, to make it have some advantage/disadvantage using different techs if you want to be more stealthy (instead of just equipping ECM)

Edited by Reno Blade, 11 August 2018 - 08:44 AM.

[Guile Votoms]

You know things ain't looking good when saying the truth is considered an Insult or Staff Abuse and gets censored.

[Ridingwolf1]

BTW Chris,

I have seen three devs in drops recently, one in a T4 or 5 drop, a T3 drop, and a T1 drop.

Just a suggestion, unless there is some form of analytical program data gathering from that account, don't use the [PGI] unit tag in these games. Use different accounts. They were hunted down by people almost instantly each time by angry people.

[Guile Votoms]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

No matter what we do, there will always be weapons that favor certain targets over others. No shooter out on the market doesn't run into situations where certain weapons / abilities are exponentially more effective against certain classes / hero's / titan's / etc. compared to others. The trick is to allow for options that allow for a dynamic give and take between the different factors. Our game is no different. While streaks will almost always be more effective vs. Lights then other targets due to their mechanics, on the flip side, lights themselves have their own options such as mass Machine guns that are much more effective against slower, more stationary heavy / assault 'Mechs then they are against faster lights.

Where I come in is always going to come down to how extreme is that divide? And how easy is it to achieve effective results in those extreme situations? In the case of SSRMs I would argue their current state is too easy to achieve results for their effectiveness against lighter targets. Which in addition to the many things we brought up about LRMs feed into the team's decision to close the Artemis "loophole" for streak launchers, as well as tightening the lock-on angle for both LRMs and Streaks in the upcoming August patch, which will directly affect SSRMs ease of use against lighter targets. Against high skill players, closing the Artemis loophole will at a minimum give you an extra second to react to a Streak boat, even when accounting for perfect aim on their end. While the tighter angles to hold and maintain locks will make it more difficult for them to acquire + maintain locks against you.

But make no mistake, they will still be a highly effective weapon against lighter targets provided the player can both acquire and maintain a lock under the more restrictive conditions. We will have to see how far these changes move the dial in this regard before considering if further steps are needed. But like everything else, we always have our eye on some of the more extreme counter options out there.

The problem is that lock-on mechanics in MWO are fundamentally flawed and require a major rework.

[SilentFenris]

Ridingwolf1, on 11 August 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

Because until addressing the gulf in player skill is addressed, the data itself that PGI is running off of is invalid. As has been stated by myself, Proton, a dozen other people in this thread, and hundreds of other people over the years.

To summarize: You CAN'T balance weapon issues with data derived from players that can aim shooting at players standing still for several seconds.

As you and other have said, there is a gap in player Skill, even among Tier1 pilots. I agree with you.

But consider this, IF a PSR reset is done, are there truely enough Tier1 pilots for the Matchmatcher to put in match without a 2, 5 or 10 minute wait time? Especially since pilots are spread over 24 timezones and 3 Quickplay servers.

If wait time for a match is too high, you have to let Tier2 and during non-peek times, Tier3 in match with Tier1. Would the matches be that different from what we have now?

Ridingwolf1, on 11 August 2018 - 08:05 AM, said:

Said by Inviictus: -Clan Boogeymen... what about players who stand still while getting shot?

Elizander further said: I feel that the argument about deleting someone is lacking different perspectives and is only a case for a 50 ton mech being destroyed by a 90 ton mech from fresh via CT kill when it is not twisting.
4x SRM6 can instantly delete a lot of mechs from behind if it is close enough. I've done this a lot on my Griffin 2N.
Headshots with PPFLD can delete mechs who stand still or shut down. I've had other players intentionally try to get headshots on me if I was standing still too much.
Having one single heavy gauss rifle can delete a fresh Flea.
Going strictly with math, a 96 point laser alpha strike that is not twisted within the 1+ second burn is not enough to kill a 55 ton mech without crits. A 55 ton mech with no quirks to armor or structure will have 104 total HP to blow out the CT assuming you go extreme with like 4 back armor. Even with 10 back armor it's still 98 hp to 96 damage. We are talking about a 90 ton mech doing this to a non-moving 55 ton mech. Anything bigger will have even more health to survive without twisting.

While your math is sound there is a slight incosistancy with your theory vs. how matches unfold. Mechs are only at 100% health once during a match. You hit someone hard but do not kill them a good pilot will hide and poke and still get decent but not great damage.

The true power of a high Alpha comes into play mid to late game when they can blow through damaged heavy-class mechs in one volley. This is when a skirmish game goes from 2-2 or 3-3 to 10-2 or 10-3 really fast. Also when it is 11-9 or so and that last mdch left makes it 11-11 in two volleys. You don't need 90 damage over 1 second, 30 damage over 0.33 seconds is enough to secure the kill. The rest of the beam duration is wasted.

Edited by SilentFenris, 11 August 2018 - 08:56 AM.

[Ridingwolf1]

SilentFenris, on 11 August 2018 - 08:46 AM, said:

As you and other have said, there is a gap in player Skill, even among Tier1 pilots. I agree with you.

But consider this, IF a PSR reset is done, are there truely enough Tier1 pilots for the Matchmatcher to put in match without a 2, 5 or 10 minute wait time? Especially since pilots are spread over 24 timezones and 3 Quickplay servers.

If wait time for a match is too high, you have to let Tier2 and during non-peek times, Tier3 in match with Tier1. Would the matches be that different from what we have now?

Actually, this should bring back some players that are T1 quality that have been asking for this for years. There are new people that are T1 quality pilots that are being held down and back by teams not that quality. MM doesn't need to separate out and only drop the same tier vs the same tier. No one has ever said that. What we have said is that the system needs to be a representation of player skill, not an experience bar.

As far as a post reset MM, the current system of T3-T1 dropping together is fine, 20 minute ques wouldn't happen then like they don't now. The majority of the problem centers around T5 quality players making it to T1 because of the current system. This means that no matter what data PGI gathers using the current MM system is invalid data. The results are so skewed right now that nothing can be trusted for data.

That said, the majority of T1 matches would consist of mostly real T1 players. T3 matches would consist of mostly T3 players. T5 matches would consist of T5 players. With the removal of win/loss from the equation, every single player in MWO would be the tier their OWN skill puts them in. This is the biggest issue and the reason why data is invalid.

Edited by Ridingwolf1, 11 August 2018 - 09:07 AM.

[Horseman]

Jonathan8883, on 11 August 2018 - 05:46 AM, said:

Chris, I'm pretty sure Streak lock-on cones were tightened several months ago. I run a streak+narc Arctic Wolf, and it's very easy to lose locks just in the course of my dodging and movements. Making streaks even less user-friendly (which disproportionately includes less noob-friendly) is going to make them less-suited for fast-movers, and more suited only for heavies and assaults that aren't moving much. This will hit mediums (Bushwhacker, Arctic Wolf, Shadow Cat, Huntsman, etc.) and weaken an already risky style of play.

They very much were.

[Kin3ticX]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:35 PM, said:

No matter what we do, there will always be weapons that favor certain targets over others. No shooter out on the market doesn't run into situations where certain weapons / abilities are exponentially more effective against certain classes / hero's / titan's / etc. compared to others. The trick is to allow for options that allow for a dynamic give and take between the different factors. Our game is no different. While streaks will almost always be more effective vs. Lights then other targets due to their mechanics, on the flip side, lights themselves have their own options such as mass Machine guns that are much more effective against slower, more stationary heavy / assault 'Mechs then they are against faster lights.

Where I come in is always going to come down to how extreme is that divide? And how easy is it to achieve effective results in those extreme situations? In the case of SSRMs I would argue their current state is too easy to achieve results for their effectiveness against lighter targets. Which in addition to the many things we brought up about LRMs feed into the team's decision to close the Artemis "loophole" for streak launchers, as well as tightening the lock-on angle for both LRMs and Streaks in the upcoming August patch, which will directly affect SSRMs ease of use against lighter targets. Against high skill players, closing the Artemis loophole will at a minimum give you an extra second to react to a Streak boat, even when accounting for perfect aim on their end. While the tighter angles to hold and maintain locks will make it more difficult for them to acquire + maintain locks against you.

But make no mistake, they will still be a highly effective weapon against lighter targets provided the player can both acquire and maintain a lock under the more restrictive conditions. We will have to see how far these changes move the dial in this regard before considering if further steps are needed. But like everything else, we always have our eye on some of the more extreme counter options out there.

if you want to add a bit more skill to LRMs or streaks, as funny as that sounds, perhaps make the lock-on pipper less forgiving than it is now. As it is right now you can hold locks with your foot if you wanted to (yeah thats a Juju reference)