137 replies to this topic

[Chris Lowrey]

Ok, back from the long weekend. Catching up with some comments.

Andi Nagasia, on 30 August 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

Chris if i may be so bold as to suggest a topic from awail back, on an LRM rework,
(Reworked Lrm Concept, With Current And New Stats!)

So I will not comment on anything directly in suggestion posts as there will be zero chance that I would be able to keep up with every re-work post that gets posted here, but I do want to speak a bit on the prospect of complete ground up reworks.

The thing about ground up re-works is naturally, they take a huge number of resources and time to implement. And most importantly, no matter what you can convince yourself sounds good on paper, this does not always guarantee that you will get the results that you wish out of any system level rework. Now, I want to state up front that we never take the possibility of re-works off the table. If we absolutely feel that it needs to be done, it is always a tool in our belts that we can fall back on if we feel the need. The big question is always going to be is it really so far gone that we have to take that we can only do it ? You don't need to demolish a house down to the foundation just to remodel a bathroom provided your willing to work within the structure you already have. Especially when you feel those people that would have to do the legwork to get any kind of re-work in can be allocated towards other parts of the game for better effect.

This doesn't mean we are against any kind of reworking of the mechanics, but as Paul has said in previous podcasts, my capacity to implement change is on a tight leash towards only small incremental ones across multiple months unless we feel a need to be more aggressive as we did with this previous patch. I can instigate change, including mechanical ones, but only when I exhaust other options more readily available at my disposal.

This is why we did not lead the slew of LRM changes over the past few months with any kind of new LOS mechanic. We had a number of things that we felt were not where they should be with the core system:

• Their velocity was so low that they where only effective at ranges that we felt where too restrictive for a weapon billed as a Long Range missile. Especially with MRM's being more effective at the ranges that LRMs often where most effective at.
  
• Their Ammo was skewed lower then any other weapon in the game, so the buff to ammo leveled the playing field against it and other weapon types.
  
• We wanted to nudge their heat up to help slot the weapon into more of a ranged, unfocused DPS niche that we wanted out of the weapon.
  
• Slightly raise the skill floor on the weapon
  
• Standard missile to Artemis performance gap had to be brought into better alignment against one another, as any future tuning needs to not leave standard launchers in the dust. And the system was force multiplying with various other systems to the point where it was massively complicating our efforts to improve the core systems.

Before I can get buy-in on any kind of core 'Mechanics change, I need to see where the weapon stands when we exhaust the options that are within my control. In addition to ironing out things that heavily distort situational performance as Artemis was doing so we can get a clear picture of what the weapon looks like when we strip out the things that where fundamentally breaking the dynamic and bring the weapon up into better consistency with the rest of the overall weapon line up. This allows us to ensure that when we do look into something like LOS conditions for LRM's we can deploy them in a way that addresses a targeted stress point for the weapon that we couldn't adapt through the systems we have at our current disposal.

At the end of the day, we don't want to simply throw a mechanic in for the sake of throwing a mechanic in, but have it contribute in a way that benefits a particular stress point we are unsatisfied with and want to see improved. While I'm sure many would like us to simply go back to the drawing board on many points within the game, the reality is that doing so on any singular point stifles progress that we would like to devote to other areas of the game. (Such as the Faction play improvements that Paul is currently working towards.) We aren't against moving in a direction that in the long term would see the weapon fundamentally different from where it was at the start of this entire process. But it will more then likely come through a series of targeted individual changes that moves us in that general direction. To that end, the various LRM changes that we have pushed can be seen as laying the foundation of future improvements for the weapons affected by the recent changes now that we have sanded the weapons down to their core and have shaved off the aspects of the weapons that were feeding into the various things we were finding problematic with it's previous tuning.

[Chris Lowrey]

Jman5, on 30 August 2018 - 01:05 PM, said:

Why not swap a couple of Sensor tree skills around so that both skills take equal number of points to max out?

- snip -

So tree changes as extensive as this are always going to be a tough sell internally. As performing a tree augmentation to this degree would potentially mean an across the board refund for every player that invested into the Sensor tree at a minimum, and potential arguments that a full tree refund would be in-order. (As however you decide to re-arrange the tree might have impacted your decision to invest in the tree in the first place.) Which at a minimum would result in all players needing to reset their sensor trees for all of their 'Mechs, and at a maximum would require every player re-set all of their trees for all of their 'Mechs.

Naturally this is a change we would not take lightly on our end. So on my end, balancing the skill nodes in to power out for the nodes as the tree is currently laid out is something I can more directly act on on my side. We will never fully rule out the possibility of a potential tree change. But in order for us to consider such a change, we would need to very strongly feel that whatever changes we are pushing are such a net positive to the skill tree progression and experience that the whole player base wouldn't mind re-setting their trees on potentially their entire 'Mech roster again if we do decide to push such a change.

Jman5, on 30 August 2018 - 01:05 PM, said:

You know I've been thinking about this for a while, but one thing that I think would really excite people about the Sensor tree is if you did what you did with the Survival tree and make it progressively more powerful for smaller weight classes. Would better fit the traditional role of lights too. You could leave Radar Deprivation as is if you want (or nerf it for larger mechs).

So we run into a few design hurdles with this particular type of scaling due to the sensor mechanics playing an integral part of the Missile lock-on mechanics. Basically, if this was scaled there is a point at which you effectively hit diminishing returns to what you can effectively invest in the 'Mech if you just kept scaling in a positive direction from where it is now, and if we tune the baseline properties to scale based on tonnage lower then where they are presently, Larger Assault 'Mechs that are built around relying on those sensor 'Mechanics such as assault LRM boats would not get the same amount of returns for the same amount of skill points in. In this instance, we don't want to choke out the sensor tree as being a viable investment path for heavier and assault 'Mechs, and this is already a tree that sees its natural investment numbers drop off the higher you go in tonnage as it is. So I'm not personally a fan of further discouraging the use of the tree for heavier 'Mechs. As if they invest the points in the tree, they should feel like the points they put into it are worth the investment.

The thing about the Durability scaling is that the tree is scaled in that way due to the severity of the natural HP scaling. Keeping it at 10% increase like the heaviest assaults would effectively make you only gain a single point or two of HP even with a full investment of the tree, which we felt was simply too extreme of a reduction in per-node efficiency. So in this case, the scaling in the skill tree was directly designed to counter balance against the natural scaling in the core mech attributes. This is a natural scaling that is not present on the sensor side of things.

[Chris Lowrey]

GweNTLeR, on 31 August 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

@Chris
How do you define presence of LOS? Ray tracing from the cockpit? to...center of the mech? Because this is quite important too.

I can't get into the exact specifics of this, but I can say that it follows the same triggers that you would normally see on other LOS based mechanics in the game, say for example, determining when a 'Mech is within LOS for the purpose of it showing up on your sensor or not, or your ability to acquire an initial sensor lock against a 'Mech within your direct LOS.

[Khobai]

Jman5, on 30 August 2018 - 01:05 PM, said:

You know I've been thinking about this for a while, but one thing that I think would really excite people about the Sensor tree is if you did what you did with the Survival tree and make it progressively more powerful for smaller weight classes

I definitely think this idea has merit. Ive suggested something similar before, except doing it at the base level instead of through the skill tree. essentially divide each mech into three distinct sensor categories:


basic sensors (400m range) - most heavies/assaults

intermediate sensors (600m range) - heavies/assaults like the cyclops and most lights/mediums

advanced sensors (800m range) - lights/mediums like the raven


that would force heavies/assaults to be more dependent on lights/mediums for sensor information. it also helps lights/mediums be stealthier against isolated heavies/assaults.


It would require reworking the sensor tree somewhat so LRM assaults dont get completely screwed over. That way they can reasonably purchase sensor range skills to get their sensor range back up in combination with BAP. But the sensor tree in general needs an overhaul anyway because its one of the weaker skill trees. And I do think it would give lights/mediums a nice bump in utility that theyre currently lacking.

Edited by Khobai, 04 September 2018 - 01:29 PM.

[Jman5]

Thank you, I always appreciate the well thought out replies.

Chris Lowrey, on 04 September 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

So tree changes as extensive as this are always going to be a tough sell internally. As performing a tree augmentation to this degree would potentially mean an across the board refund for every player that invested into the Sensor tree at a minimum, and potential arguments that a full tree refund would be in-order. (As however you decide to re-arrange the tree might have impacted your decision to invest in the tree in the first place.) Which at a minimum would result in all players needing to reset their sensor trees for all of their 'Mechs, and at a maximum would require every player re-set all of their trees for all of their 'Mechs.

Naturally this is a change we would not take lightly on our end. So on my end, balancing the skill nodes in to power out for the nodes as the tree is currently laid out is something I can more directly act on on my side. We will never fully rule out the possibility of a potential tree change. But in order for us to consider such a change, we would need to very strongly feel that whatever changes we are pushing are such a net positive to the skill tree progression and experience that the whole player base wouldn't mind re-setting their trees on potentially their entire 'Mech roster again if we do decide to push such a change.

Understandable, but I did provide you with two potential paths. One extensive, one minimalist. On the issue of refunds, I would point out that after unlocking a skill, you no longer have a GXP cost to reselect it.

Really the only cost associated is the time it takes to allocate ~10-30 points on mechs that were previously using the sensor tree. Still not something to be done lightly I know, but I just don't think the sensor tree and some of the skills are in a good place balance wise for lock-on missiles. I think the only reason it's not as bad as it could be is because most people simply ignore the sensor tree.

The only real negative is that full radar deprivation would no longer completely hard counter natural lock on time + Target Decay. This would only effect people who were already using full radar dep. (people like myself)

If you used the extensive redesign one, the net positives for the community would be:

1. Significantly fewer points needed to be spent beelining Radar Deprivation.
2. Same number of points to get radar dep as it is to get Target Decay.
3. ECM and Seismic sensors easier to grab with fewer points.
4. Looks cleaner and is more thematically laid out.

Chris Lowrey, on 04 September 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

So we run into a few design hurdles with this particular type of scaling due to the sensor mechanics playing an integral part of the Missile lock-on mechanics. Basically, if this was scaled there is a point at which you effectively hit diminishing returns to what you can effectively invest in the 'Mech if you just kept scaling in a positive direction from where it is now, and if we tune the baseline properties to scale based on tonnage lower then where they are presently, Larger Assault 'Mechs that are built around relying on those sensor 'Mechanics such as assault LRM boats would not get the same amount of returns for the same amount of skill points in. In this instance, we don't want to choke out the sensor tree as being a viable investment path for heavier and assault 'Mechs, and this is already a tree that sees its natural investment numbers drop off the higher you go in tonnage as it is. So I'm not personally a fan of further discouraging the use of the tree for heavier 'Mechs. As if they invest the points in the tree, they should feel like the points they put into it are worth the investment.

The thing about the Durability scaling is that the tree is scaled in that way due to the severity of the natural HP scaling. Keeping it at 10% increase like the heaviest assaults would effectively make you only gain a single point or two of HP even with a full investment of the tree, which we felt was simply too extreme of a reduction in per-node efficiency. So in this case, the scaling in the skill tree was directly designed to counter balance against the natural scaling in the core mech attributes. This is a natural scaling that is not present on the sensor side of things.

I do understand that you want to avoid just buffing everything to the moon and you want assaults to want to go down the sensor tree.

At the same time, I think smaller mechs really need some sort of sensor advantages over their larger counterparts. Whether that's increased sensor range or decreased detection range. It just doesn't sit well with me that light mechs, which traditionally have this role as scouts and spotters, are on par with assault mechs. I think there needs to be inherent sensor advantages some way and I think it should scale.

If you don't want to go down the sensor range buff avenue, I think detection range is a pretty rewarding avenue to explore. Detection range is actually a pretty decent way to indirectly improve smaller mechs survivability. Not only are they getting LRM-locked less, but they're just not noticed and focused fired as much. It's very noticeable when I've switched back and forth between my ECM Arctic Cheetah and non-ecm Firestarter. This would allow lights to sneak more, get in closer, and provide locks while not getting LRM'd to death themselves. It doesn't need to be extreme, you could bump assault range up to 800m, then go down by 25-50m.

[Khobai]

Jman5, on 04 September 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

At the same time, I think smaller mechs really need some sort of sensor advantages over their larger counterparts. Whether that's increased sensor range or decreased detection range. It just doesn't sit well with me that light mechs, which traditionally have this role as scouts and spotters, are on par with assault mechs. I think there needs to be inherent sensor advantages some way and I think it should scale.

I think just having three different sensor types (basic/intermediate/advanced) is the way to go. Because it keeps things very simple. And its very easy to add to the game. Just decrease the base sensor range to 400m then add hardwired basic/intermediate/advanced sensor items to the sensor slots in the heads of each mech. Similar to how the cyclops' sensor buff works.

If you did decreased detection range, so that every mech was detected at a different range based on its tonnage, that gets very complicated. It would be harder to add to the game and youd have to memorize what range you can be detected at for each mech, its just hard to keep track of all that. It also kindve detracts from ecm/stealth armor if mechs get built-in stealth. So im not sure I like it for that reason either.

Edited by Khobai, 04 September 2018 - 01:45 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Chris Lowrey, on 04 September 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

So tree changes as extensive as this are always going to be a tough sell internally. As performing a tree augmentation to this degree would potentially mean an across the board refund for every player that invested into the Sensor tree at a minimum, and potential arguments that a full tree refund would be in-order. (As however you decide to re-arrange the tree might have impacted your decision to invest in the tree in the first place.) Which at a minimum would result in all players needing to reset their sensor trees for all of their 'Mechs, and at a maximum would require every player re-set all of their trees for all of their 'Mechs.

Naturally this is a change we would not take lightly on our end. So on my end, balancing the skill nodes in to power out for the nodes as the tree is currently laid out is something I can more directly act on on my side. We will never fully rule out the possibility of a potential tree change. But in order for us to consider such a change, we would need to very strongly feel that whatever changes we are pushing are such a net positive to the skill tree progression and experience that the whole player base wouldn't mind re-setting their trees on potentially their entire 'Mech roster again if we do decide to push such a change.

By this rationale, it seems like we're pretty much stuck with the skill tree as is. It doesn't really bother me, but it seems two or three times more complicated than it needs to be, and the branches that do not directly impact firepower or survivability feel like they're not worth the trade off.

[General Solo]

The current skill tree rocks making player choices more nuanced, less cookie cutter skills builds.

Removing full derp is going to hit peeking direct fire assualt/slow mechs the most with their slow de/acceleration, making them sitting ducks when employing any sort of soft cover and easy pray to Full decay lrm boats.
Assualts why are you hiding, shoot *%^*%( you.

Lights have speed as a counter to decay but slow mechs are very vulnerable to decay when using soft cover.
I mean is derp a must have? Does it need to be nerfed?
Nerf mania I say!

People bring up the old system like it was better. Well pretty sure in the old system derp cancelled decay as soon as LOS was broken. Im fine with this.

Against an underp skilled opponent in soft cover with full decay; You can deliever 3 volleys to their one
One volley with LOS and two without LOS, in essence making Target decay is like a poor mans indirect fire enabler for short amounts of time.

Just saying

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 05 September 2018 - 03:43 AM.

[Daurock]

Chris Lowrey, on 04 September 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

So tree changes as extensive as this are always going to be a tough sell internally. As performing a tree augmentation to this degree would potentially mean an across the board refund for every player that invested into the Sensor tree at a minimum, and potential arguments that a full tree refund would be in-order. (As however you decide to re-arrange the tree might have impacted your decision to invest in the tree in the first place.) Which at a minimum would result in all players needing to reset their sensor trees for all of their 'Mechs, and at a maximum would require every player re-set all of their trees for all of their 'Mechs.
things.

I think those concerns are something that will always accompany any tree changes. ANY change to the tree balance has the potential to have a lot of people need to shift around a lot of points. So, I understand the desire to keep tree changes to a slower, more gradual process.

Still, I think it is important attempt to keep tree balances in check. Right now, I see 2 semi-problems existing in the Sensor tree -
1st - Radar Deprivation over-rides many of the other possible points in the tree - If a mech has them, the other player's tree doesn't matter- target Decay, for example, are completely useless if the enemy has full Radar Dep. This isn't a great thing. This is pretty much only an issue for a mech with 100% radar dep, as other times it seems to be not a huge issue.
2nd - In part because of problem 1, A lot of skills in the tree are Just Plain Bad - The worst offenders here are probably Info Gathering, Sensor range, And Target Retention, which are useful to few to no people. It's OK to have skills in the tree that are pretty situational, (Decay for LRMers, ECM for ECM meks, for example) but it's really no fun to have to place skills into useless points to get the few ones you really want. (This is a bit of a problem shared with the Ops tree, but the ops tree is a different subject for a different day) I think the tree, outside of maybe radar dep, is mostly lackluster when compared to most of the other trees. If/When people are taking it, it is currently only for radar dep, maybe seismic, and maybe ECM if you have it. Overall, i think the tree needs more help than it does hurting.

Thinking about those 2 issues, I think a good solution is to add either a new "Feature" to some of the less valuable points, baking them into the existing skills, and/or simply making them stronger (Possibly reducing "Base" stats of various systems as needed). Do that, and you'll have the room to reduce the power of radar deprivation a bit, and keep the tree strong. (I.E. if you add a couple of things below, and pull radar dep down to 15% (just an example number) per point, people will probably still take the tree) This can be done in steps, one skill at a time, and honestly, is probably the preferred direction.

Lastly, some possible buffing examples for the less desired skills-

- Adding some "Missile Lock Reduction" to the "Target info gathering," skills.
- Having "Target Retention" Increase the "Lock Cone" Size (Don't know how techincally difficult this one is)
- Adding a little "ECM cutter" Type of love into sensor range points, in addition to the current range boost.
- Buff the "Sensor Range" Perk to 15% instead of 7. To balance that, reduce ALL sensor ranges by 25% give or take, so that a mech running lots of sensor perks has a higher range than live, but a mech with 0 or 1 Range perks has Less range than on live. It improves the quality of the skill, but changes little of the overall balance, ideally. (Mechs running 3 or 4 points, like they have to do to get full radar dep would be mostly unaffected)

Edited by Daurock, 05 September 2018 - 08:39 AM.

[Tier5ForLife]

Thorqemada, on 04 September 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

Read it this way:
= behind this comes the result
- this is a Hyphen i used as spacer

Hope this makes it more clear for you

Ah thanks. I was looking at it like it was a math question, lol'.

[Tier5ForLife]

OZHomerOZ, on 03 September 2018 - 09:14 PM, said:

This is a special mech because you have to be a bit crazy to drive it AND I only have two lerm mechs in my entire stable and this ones a lot of fun to use unlike my lock leaching Supernova, and can get its own lock in nearly any situation (OK Jamming on incursion you got me.)

https://mwo.smurfy-n...deab080e3ece329

How to use



Once use land the narc you don't have to aim or expose your mech anymore for a good 50 seconds.

Why I use it?
Clan Narc has awesome range, 600 metres, and the Summoner B's quirks add another 50 metres and 10 seconds extra duration. Plus with the narc skills you get even more duration (Muhahahaha) and a velocity boast to land those narc shots.

Lrms10 spread like 5's and go fer CT pretty good

Tips
Jump, narc, lerm from safety in that order, and run for your team when they come to geet ya.

Shooting the narc is kinda like firing a slow tiny invisible PPC, go for the slow and static targets especially assualt/heavy mechs

Always narc the ECM mechs first, this disables the ECM. If their two or three narc them all and kill them first. rest of the game will be ezier.

Use your speed to Narc/lrm from unexpected angles and positions.

Because the lerms are in the hands you can lerm as you are running away

I like it. I need to check my main account and see if I have a Summoner-B. I can't remember what mech I tried this with but the quirks on this one are nice. I see you went with the LRM 10's because the quirk for LRM 20 was so small. So small it makes no sense. And you went without a Probe.

But this is also a good example of one thing that dives me nuts about "these designs" Here they built an LRM mech. A pure LRM Mech. I understand firing from cover (it sucks to try to face down someone using LRMs when they are shooting ACs or lasers at you. But I also love using a TAG. And this mech has a totally empty shoulder where a high mounted TAG should be.

If someone brought this design to me I'd ask them "where is the energy slot in the left shoulder for a TAG"? Why is the left shoulder empty?

I'm going to try this and totally blame you if anyone says anything. hehe

[Tier5ForLife]

Chris Lowrey, on 04 September 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

Ok, back from the long weekend. Catching up with some comments.



So I will not comment on anything directly in suggestion posts as there will be zero chance that I would be able to keep up with every re-work post that gets posted here, but I do want to speak a bit on the prospect of complete ground up reworks.

The thing about ground up re-works is naturally, they take a huge number of resources and time to implement. And most importantly, no matter what you can convince yourself sounds good on paper, this does not always guarantee that you will get the results that you wish out of any system level rework. Now, I want to state up front that we never take the possibility of re-works off the table. If we absolutely feel that it needs to be done, it is always a tool in our belts that we can fall back on if we feel the need. The big question is always going to be is it really so far gone that we have to take that we can only do it ? You don't need to demolish a house down to the foundation just to remodel a bathroom provided your willing to work within the structure you already have. Especially when you feel those people that would have to do the legwork to get any kind of re-work in can be allocated towards other parts of the game for better effect.

This doesn't mean we are against any kind of reworking of the mechanics, but as Paul has said in previous podcasts, my capacity to implement change is on a tight leash towards only small incremental ones across multiple months unless we feel a need to be more aggressive as we did with this previous patch. I can instigate change, including mechanical ones, but only when I exhaust other options more readily available at my disposal.

This is why we did not lead the slew of LRM changes over the past few months with any kind of new LOS mechanic. We had a number of things that we felt were not where they should be with the core system:

• Their velocity was so low that they where only effective at ranges that we felt where too restrictive for a weapon billed as a Long Range missile. Especially with MRM's being more effective at the ranges that LRMs often where most effective at.
  
• Their Ammo was skewed lower then any other weapon in the game, so the buff to ammo leveled the playing field against it and other weapon types.
  
• We wanted to nudge their heat up to help slot the weapon into more of a ranged, unfocused DPS niche that we wanted out of the weapon.
  
• Slightly raise the skill floor on the weapon
  
• Standard missile to Artemis performance gap had to be brought into better alignment against one another, as any future tuning needs to not leave standard launchers in the dust. And the system was force multiplying with various other systems to the point where it was massively complicating our efforts to improve the core systems.

Before I can get buy-in on any kind of core 'Mechanics change, I need to see where the weapon stands when we exhaust the options that are within my control. In addition to ironing out things that heavily distort situational performance as Artemis was doing so we can get a clear picture of what the weapon looks like when we strip out the things that where fundamentally breaking the dynamic and bring the weapon up into better consistency with the rest of the overall weapon line up. This allows us to ensure that when we do look into something like LOS conditions for LRM's we can deploy them in a way that addresses a targeted stress point for the weapon that we couldn't adapt through the systems we have at our current disposal.


At the end of the day, we don't want to simply throw a mechanic in for the sake of throwing a mechanic in, but have it contribute in a way that benefits a particular stress point we are unsatisfied with and want to see improved. While I'm sure many would like us to simply go back to the drawing board on many points within the game, the reality is that doing so on any singular point stifles progress that we would like to devote to other areas of the game. (Such as the Faction play improvements that Paul is currently working towards.) We aren't against moving in a direction that in the long term would see the weapon fundamentally different from where it was at the start of this entire process. But it will more then likely come through a series of targeted individual changes that moves us in that general direction. To that end, the various LRM changes that we have pushed can be seen as laying the foundation of future improvements for the weapons affected by the recent changes now that we have sanded the weapons down to their core and have shaved off the aspects of the weapons that were feeding into the various things we were finding problematic with it's previous tuning.

How about ATMs? They take so long to get a lock with. Before these last changes, I set up a mech with an LRM, an ATM a Streak and a Tag.

I would Tag and then try to target the same target. The LRM locked quickly and hit their mark, the ATM would lock late or not at all and the missiles missed. The Streak would give tone but would always fire late if at all.

I find right now that often my first shot with ATMs are a total miss but I have to fire anyway because staring down an enemy mech for this long is suicide. So I have to hope that by the time I try to fire the 2nd volley, it will lock and the target will still be there.

I have LOS, a TAG and at least 35% plus of my missiles are totally wasted. I tried using a Kit Fox today with a high mounted TAG and an ATM but by the time I got a lock, I'd be close to being cored.

Edited by LikeUntoBuddha, 05 September 2018 - 09:53 AM.

[General Solo]

LikeUntoBuddha, on 05 September 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

I see you went with the LRM 10's because the quirk for LRM 20 was so small. So small it makes no sense.

LRM 10s have a tight spread, they mostly hit CT's and Side torso's, so more effective damage.
Carrying missiles like LRM20's that hit all locations is dead weight you can use for bigger ammo explosions
Only jokes got CASE II

LikeUntoBuddha, on 05 September 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

And you went without a Probe.

You don't need no smelly probe, narc already disabled the ECM@650 metres instead of 200m..I laugh at your probe.
If the ECM is disabled you got nothing to probe

LikeUntoBuddha, on 05 September 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

Here they built an LRM mech. A pure LRM Mech. I understand firing from cover (it sucks to try to face down someone using LRMs when they are shooting ACs or lasers at you.

One: Go Big or Go Home
Two: Team mates are cover ?

LikeUntoBuddha, on 05 September 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

But I also love using a TAG. And this mech has a totally empty shoulder where a high mounted TAG should be.

Narc Fire and forget Alpha lock and team wall hack, screw u ECM beast
TAG High face time Clag bait wannabe

Hope this was helpfull

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 05 September 2018 - 12:44 PM.

[Tier5ForLife]

I have a thing about trying to prove that I can stand there with a TAG and mow someone down with those slow-moving missiles.

I have a Madcat and Supernova where I have ATMS, Steaks, and LRMs and I can throw a lot of damage and take out whoever is in front of me but I also tend to get killed soon after.

You remind me of one important thing I often forget. It's not always how much damage you dish out, it is also about how much you take. Dying early and quickly does not help me or the team.

I need to get back to those days of never giving up. I had two decent such games today. A teammate (by accident) blow off my Piranha's leg within the first few minutes. The 2nd was when my Madcat was down to one medium laser and AMS, lol.

[General Solo]

LikeUntoBuddha, on 05 September 2018 - 05:52 PM, said:

You remind me of one important thing I often forget. It's not always how much damage you dish out, it is also about how much you take. Dying early and quickly does not help me or the team.

Ask your self why you taking damage is good.
The reason is to draw fire away from team mates right?

Well you don't have to take damage to do that.
As long as the enemy shoots at you, whether they hit or missed or hit terrain is irrelevant, because the goal of drawing fire away from a team mate was achieved.

Good trading from cover (including narc/lerm) can draw fire and keep your mech and your teams mechs in good health.
Saving your/their armor for the carry if needed.

Don't take damage carelessly and deny your team your armour and possibly your mech when smart poking can wear them down so that when the team pushes you actually have an advantage.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 06 September 2018 - 01:09 AM.

[Chados]

Chris.

Look at this.

https://youtu.be/SbFjwATMDXs

Now, I get that this player is running a an Artemis LRM10x3 Atlas and that’s never ever been a good build. He’s using TAG poorly and his technique isn’t good, I get that too, it’s never desirable for a 100 tonner to LRM at the back of the pack. But the point of this video posting here is not to potato-shame the player. The point is that he at least is trying to get his own locks in this video and he can’t get them. At all.

This video is instructive as to the state of guided-missile play after your ill-advised, poorly reasoned, and thoughtlessly considered nerf campaign two weeks ago. Look where his nose is. He’s dead in the red target-locked box, at medium range, AND HE STILL CANNOT GET A LOCK. On a slow moving target not moving laterally against him, in seconds’ time, Chris. How in the name of Kerensky is a medium IS mech running streaks at 300 meters supposed to lock up a Locust running laterally across his nose and orbiting him at 150 kph?

How on Earth you can look at this and call it “working as intended”? How is it not the absolute nadir of abject hypocrisy to claim that you all are trying to make all weapons relevant when you’ve done this? Artemis is a complete waste of tonnage. And you have made the LRM, at least on the IS side, 100% USELESS unless it is being boated over 60 tubes and sitting back playing turret warrior while leeching off locks gained by other mechs. Because you can’t get a lock unless you have time to sit in one place and let the lock ring spin for ten seconds at a time, and that is an ETERNITY in a match! In other words, you have relegated the LRM to Clan mechs in faction warfare being fielded as part of a niche strategy. And you’ve removed IS streaks from the game, when they already were a little-used weapon in the first place.

FIX THIS. Please.

Edited by Chados, 06 September 2018 - 02:53 AM.

[Tier5ForLife]

OZHomerOZ, on 06 September 2018 - 01:08 AM, said:

Ask your self why you taking damage is good.
The reason is to draw fire away from team mates right?

Well you don't have to take damage to do that.
As long as the enemy shoots at you, whether they hit or missed or hit terrain is irrelevant, because the goal of drawing fire away from a team mate was achieved.

Good trading from cover (including narc/lerm) can draw fire and keep your mech and your teams mechs in good health.
Saving your/their armor for the carry if needed.

Don't take damage carelessly and deny your team your armour and possibly your mech when smart poking can wear them down so that when the team pushes you actually have an advantage.

Great stuff, thanks!

One other thing I used to do better is not to wait to see if your shots hit, duck back quicker.

I have a bad habit of dying 1st. Maybe in 37% of my matches I die 1st, I always push and find no one with me. And I do end up facing 3-4 enemy mechs alone. I have to remember that it is simple math. The best players cannot take on odds that I try to and I'm not a good player and never will be (poor eyesight and at 58 years old, this is my first "shooter" game)

I was lucky enough to run some with LORE last week and they never stop moving. I try to tell people that moving backward upsets team firepower. I often use strikes set forward before I go forward and while with LORE, I had to stop because we were moving into my strikes.

But with quickplay etc I need to chill, as you said, shoot and do some damage but stop always having to be in front.

[Tier5ForLife]

Chados, on 06 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Chris.

Look at this.

https://youtu.be/SbFjwATMDXs

Now, I get that this player is running a an Artemis LRM10x3 Atlas and that’s never ever been a good build. He’s using TAG poorly and his technique isn’t good, I get that too, it’s never desirable for a 100 tonner to LRM at the back of the pack. But the point of this video posting here is not to potato-shame the player. The point is that he at least is trying to get his own locks in this video and he can’t get them. At all.

This video is instructive as to the state of guided-missile play after your ill-advised, poorly reasoned, and thoughtlessly considered nerf campaign two weeks ago. Look where his nose is. He’s dead in the red target-locked box, at medium range, AND HE STILL CANNOT GET A LOCK. On a slow moving target not moving laterally against him, in seconds’ time, Chris. How in the name of Kerensky is a medium IS mech running streaks at 300 meters supposed to lock up a Locust running laterally across his nose and orbiting him at 150 kph?

How on Earth you can look at this and call it “working as intended”? How is it not the absolute nadir of abject hypocrisy to claim that you all are trying to make all weapons relevant when you’ve done this? Artemis is a complete waste of tonnage. And you have made the LRM, at least on the IS side, 100% USELESS unless it is being boated over 60 tubes and sitting back playing turret warrior while leeching off locks gained by other mechs. Because you can’t get a lock unless you have time to sit in one place and let the lock ring spin for ten seconds at a time, and that is an ETERNITY in a match! In other words, you have relegated the LRM to Clan mechs in faction warfare being fielded as part of a niche strategy. And you’ve removed IS streaks from the game, when they already were a little-used weapon in the first place.

FIX THIS. Please.

Getting any lock is hard now. Even Narced enemy mechs are hard to target.

Please tell me this Chris:

How long with LOS does it take to get an LRM target lock?

How long with LOS does it take to get an ATM target lock?

How long with LOS does it take to get a Streak target Lock?

[Aldodrem]

Does not mention why you felt you need to slap a 200% nerf on NARC cooldowns

Edited by Aldodrem, 06 September 2018 - 07:41 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Chados, on 06 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Chris.

Look at this.

https://youtu.be/SbFjwATMDXs

- snip -

So if your referring to the 2:40 area of the video in regards to the time it takes to lock on, then all I can say on the matter is "stay tuned." We are looking into situations specifically like this for some of the previously mentioned LOS missile changes we are investigating, but again, too early to say anything definitively yet.

But a few notes on the current mechanic behavior observed in the video:

TAG needs to physically hit the target in order to provide its boosting effects against it, and must maintain hitting the target throughout the lock-on process if you are attempting to fully benefit from the lock-on speed increases. There is a "reticle" shaped icon that appears in the upper box where the ECM and eyeball icon was on those enemies if a target is being hit by TAG.

So in the case of the video, there are multiple instances where tag is in the general vicinity of a target (in the box,) but not physically hitting the target, so in these cases, it is not providing any benefit.

Most of the times in the video that the player was attempting to get a lock, the enemy group was under ECM cover (eyeball icon on their hud.) So while that eyeball is up, it means that those 'Mechs are beneficiaries of the ECM's lock on weapon extension times. TAG can counteract this, but it needs to be physically hitting the target in order to gain its benefits. While the PPC's can counter the ECM itself if you hit the carrier, as he did in the final seconds of the clip (note that once he disabled the ECM, the missiles where able to get an instantaneous lock once it was disabled.)

Again, this is just to highlight the current mechanical behavior. As said, we are looking into changes regarding some of the LOS mechanics that should improve some situations that where in the video. We'll share more when we have the info.