Jump to content

Speaking On Missiles And Artemis

Dev Post

136 replies to this topic

#121 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,493 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 06 September 2018 - 12:57 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 06 September 2018 - 09:46 AM, said:

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.


Los improvements ? Thats what we need. Make LOS OP! Indirect fire should spread like crazy in my view. Direct fire needs rewarded if not people just hide in the back getting the easy kills.

#122 Tier5ForLife

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 481 posts

Posted 06 September 2018 - 02:32 PM

This also shows how hard it is to use a TAG.

#123 Hiten Bongz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 163 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 08 September 2018 - 11:26 AM

I guess I'll just strip and sell all of my ATMs and Streaks before they are even MORE useless (lol), because after the October "DPS patch" drops you'll just be dead before a lock is even achieved.

Eh this game is quickly turning into a joke, I think it's time to play some of my backlog.

Edited by Hiten Bongz, 08 September 2018 - 02:44 PM.


#124 panzer1b

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts

Posted 02 October 2018 - 08:12 PM

Ill be honest about my feelings towards ALL missile systems, THEY SUCK (when put side by side against dakka and various forms of vomit).

The sad fact is that post artemis spread nerf (from a while ago), SRM-4 and 6 are unable to hit a specific hitbox with more then half the shots (at reasonable engagement range of ~200m), so their lethality is plain and simply underwhelming. I can get incredibly damage numbers with a scorch running 2 LBX-20 and SRM-24, but that damage is super inefficient compared to the mad2c-d with a uac20, uac10, LPL, and MPL despite both mechs being almost the same role as short range brawlers (and the mad2c-d build isnt even meta or that good). Not only can i get comparable or even superior damage numbers out of a uac brawler (with a few lasers as secondarys), but that damage if vastly more meaningful when you can get a good 75% of it exactly where it needs to go at 300-400m instead of kissing distance for the spreading weapons like missiles or shotguns.

So yeah, with the situational exception of ATMs which are the ONLY missile system that does so much raw damage as to overcome the inability to hit 1 component (100+ damage is enough that it doesnt matter where it hits its still gonna hurt), all missiles need to have major spread decrease to become a viable system again and actually be used outside of mechs that have nothing but missiles or purely for fun.

#125 INVIICTUS

    Rookie

  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 12:12 PM

View Postpanzer1b, on 02 October 2018 - 08:12 PM, said:

Ill be honest about my feelings towards ALL missile systems, THEY SUCK (when put side by side against dakka and various forms of vomit).

The sad fact is that post artemis spread nerf (from a while ago), SRM-4 and 6 are unable to hit a specific hitbox with more then half the shots (at reasonable engagement range of ~200m), so their lethality is plain and simply underwhelming. I can get incredibly damage numbers with a scorch running 2 LBX-20 and SRM-24, but that damage is super inefficient compared to the mad2c-d with a uac20, uac10, LPL, and MPL despite both mechs being almost the same role as short range brawlers (and the mad2c-d build isnt even meta or that good). Not only can i get comparable or even superior damage numbers out of a uac brawler (with a few lasers as secondarys), but that damage if vastly more meaningful when you can get a good 75% of it exactly where it needs to go at 300-400m instead of kissing distance for the spreading weapons like missiles or shotguns.

So yeah, with the situational exception of ATMs which are the ONLY missile system that does so much raw damage as to overcome the inability to hit 1 component (100+ damage is enough that it doesnt matter where it hits its still gonna hurt), all missiles need to have major spread decrease to become a viable system again and actually be used outside of mechs that have nothing but missiles or purely for fun.

WAIT....WHAT?... just take an Awesome, Blood Asp, Mauler, Archer, Supernova or a whole slew of other LRM boats, shove nothing but lrms into them with like 10 tons of ammo, stick with your team and stay out of trouble and just keep shooting whatever you get locks for, and youll outdamage everyone 8 out of 10 times, all the while driving the entire enemy team NUTS, legging lights and stopping all kinds of interesting enemy team movement as you go often turning the game into an awkward standoff.... and nevermind poptarting with atm huntsman or summoner.... if you take lurms on the Archer 2R, upgrade lock on time skills and use 2 LRM20 you can get a lock, fire and go back into cover and youll still hit the target 600 meters away because of the velocity.

NOW THAT BEING SAID... I definitely agree with you about SRMs, they need some help. If I take SRMs out its always with a mech that has the hardpoint locations to spit them out of a very central location like the assassin or roughneck because the spread is so bad, but still its a huge pain... If I want to really be lethal with them I have to take the 4xSRM6 and 5xSRM2 arctic wolf so i can just give a big old hadooken, but with that things turn rate and low armor, its still a coffin on legs and NOT new player friendly.

#126 Bloodgutter

    Rookie

  • Survivor
  • 6 posts

Posted 12 December 2018 - 12:25 PM

EVER SINCE THE DECEMBER PATCH MY CLAN LRM'S ARE NOT ARCING ANYMORE. ARE YOU REPLACING THEM WITH ATM MECHANICS... WHAT THE HELL P.G.I. FIRST YOU MAKE IT REALLY HARD TO USE THEM, WHICH I APPROVE OF BTW KEEPS OUT THE SCRUBS, BUT NOW YOUR MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO USE OUTSIDE LINE OF SIGHT... IN MY EXPERIENCES SINCE THE PATCH ON AVERAGE ONLY 35 PERCENT OF MY MISSILES EVEN GET NEAR MY TARGET INSTEAD OF 70 PLUS PERCENT. PLEASE FIX THIS MONUMENTAL {LT-MOB-25}-UP.

#127 Dauntless Blint

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Scythe
  • The Scythe
  • 225 posts
  • LocationIn the black

Posted 17 May 2019 - 01:24 AM

Maybe lock-on times when using a Tag + Artemis should be near instant ( 0.5seconds @700m LOS?)
So much AMS lately.
Force yourself to play some LRM or (SRM?) based Mechs,(BAP is compulsory), not really that viable. The entire field is covered in ECM and AMS.

Maybe lock-on time should scale with the number of missiles being fired, a negative modifier for boating, starting at Zero lock time for one missile system installed, (example:+0.20) seconds per additional missile pod of the same type after the first, like ghost heat but for lock-on time the more missiles (of the same type)...not mixed types.

Example:So a mech with two SRM6 and four LRM10 would have a global + 0.60 modifier only counting the three LRM10's after the first.

Therefore: A mech with two SRM6, two LRM10 & (two MRM10's) would only have a +0.20 global modifier for having + one missile pod of the same type after the first.

Therefore: Six LRM5's would have a global modifier of +1.0 seconds.

Problem: Six LRM20's should take longer to lock then 6x LRM5's.
Add a base modifier per missile pod size.
Example: Lock Time modifier (+0.02/ +0.04/ +0.06) & (+0.05/ +0.10/ +0.15/ +0.20) seconds.

The theory result is Missile boats who overwhelm AMS and "artillery" kill, are penalized more for taking "less risk", while mixed load outs can respond quicker but are naturally better in line of site situations.
The formula is the important part, the values need to be decided.
(the missiles direct-fire buff camp)

Alternatively add some limited TV guidance on dumb fire? (more limited the bigger the missile pod)



(plugs for procedural maps)

Edited by Dauntless Blint, 17 May 2019 - 01:28 AM.


#128 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 278 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 05 February 2020 - 09:09 PM

So this is technically the wrong topic, but since I can't start a new one in this subforum, here goes: I noticed a blurb in the Engineers Notes at the back of TRO 3050 (1st ed.) that says "clans have standard versions of all the weapons, too, but they're all one crit smaller except where that would make them less than one crit in size". So Clans should have standard lasers, and their standard autocannons should be different sizes. Specifically, the standard Clan AC/2 should be one crit, like its IS counterpart, not three crits like the Clan LBX-2.

#129 Aidan Crenshaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,602 posts

Posted 07 February 2020 - 12:57 AM

The Clan AC2 we see in MWO is the solid slug equivalent of the LBX2 and it's there because they couldn't find a way to implement that you can fire both ammo types with an LBX AC. That's the reason the C-AC2 the C-LBX2 have the same tonnage and critslot requirement.

#130 Ignatius Audene

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 455 posts

Posted 12 March 2020 - 02:09 AM

And one slot clan ac2 would be borderline op. Rifleman 2c with 6 cac2 is already a beast with high mount, high dps, 1100 optimal ez.

Same is mixing IS weapons in clan mechs. Clan weapons have been nerved to achive 1vs1 balance. Keep in mind the better DHS, endo, ferro etc. If you could sherry pick out of both tech bases...

#131 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,625 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 10 April 2020 - 04:16 AM

Posted Image

Curse you, Photobucket...

#132 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,379 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 27 April 2020 - 12:48 PM

If we got some new threads from PGI on what is coming up, then there would be less temptation to necro old threads, but it would happen anyway.

#133 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,846 posts

Posted 17 May 2020 - 04:23 PM

View PostAidan Crenshaw, on 07 February 2020 - 12:57 AM, said:

The Clan AC2 we see in MWO is the solid slug equivalent of the LBX2 and it's there because they couldn't find a way to implement that you can fire both ammo types with an LBX AC. That's the reason the C-AC2 the C-LBX2 have the same tonnage and critslot requirement.


Paul leaving them in to "add content", rather than as a testament to the incapacity of making a weapon have alt-fire modes. An LB autocannon should not be stuck in shotgun mode, but the concept of weapons firing more than one way was beyond the coding wizardry of PGI.

See also ATMs being one ammo type, no alternative ammo for LRM/SRM launchers, or standard ACs for that matter.

View PostC337Skymaster, on 05 February 2020 - 09:09 PM, said:

So this is technically the wrong topic, but since I can't start a new one in this subforum, here goes: I noticed a blurb in the Engineers Notes at the back of TRO 3050 (1st ed.) that says "clans have standard versions of all the weapons, too, but they're all one crit smaller except where that would make them less than one crit in size". So Clans should have standard lasers, and their standard autocannons should be different sizes. Specifically, the standard Clan AC/2 should be one crit, like its IS counterpart, not three crits like the Clan LBX-2.


This was deleted from tabletop almost immediately for good reason: They had barely rules-tested Clantech before releasing TRO 3050, meaning much of the work was incomplete. This never made it into the rulebooks, with rules for actual "Clan-improved" and "prototype" (early IS upgrade, pre-production Clan models) of weapon systems like the AC showing up later instead.

#134 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 278 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 18 May 2020 - 03:12 AM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 17 May 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

Paul leaving them in to "add content", rather than as a testament to the incapacity of making a weapon have alt-fire modes. An LB autocannon should not be stuck in shotgun mode, but the concept of weapons firing more than one way was beyond the coding wizardry of PGI.

See also ATMs being one ammo type, no alternative ammo for LRM/SRM launchers, or standard ACs for that matter.



This was deleted from tabletop almost immediately for good reason: They had barely rules-tested Clantech before releasing TRO 3050, meaning much of the work was incomplete. This never made it into the rulebooks, with rules for actual "Clan-improved" and "prototype" (early IS upgrade, pre-production Clan models) of weapon systems like the AC showing up later instead.


Ahhh, okay. I just bought a 1st edition of TRO: 3050 a couple years ago, and haven't had any documentation other than Sarna.com prior to that. I happened to be reading it, saw that, and went "oh, there ARE rules for it!?" but if you say it never even made it out of that one specific book, then that explains why it never made it into MWO (seeing as how MWO corrected the speed error from technically traveling "half a hex", but didn't correct the tonnage error with "half of half a ton", which was introduced after TRO: 3050 was released).

#135 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 278 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 18 May 2020 - 03:19 AM

And yeah, I REALLY wish we had ammo switching capabilities, and all the different ammo-types that we're technically supposed to have, and when I first started playing, I was torn between wishing ammo was consumable and being glad it wasn't. Now that I have 750 mil CB and no idea what to do with them, I really wish ammo was consumable, with all of the bonuses for more expensive ammo that are supposed to exist. (Artemis, NARC, etc). Imagine having NARC SRM ammo? Doesn't lock on, but tracks a NARC beacon. People'd stop removing the NARC from Arctic Wolves, I'll tell you that.

Same thing bugs me about HBS' Battletech, and there there's NOT any excuse: Rogue Tech already figured out how to do ammo switching, so the fact that HBS didn't include it when they added LBs is just lazy. And there's no excuse to not have consumable ammo. You just have to fluff some way of making more Gauss ammo. Of all the ammo types, that one can't be too hard. It's just a polished metal ball/cylinder.

#136 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 5,379 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 19 May 2020 - 10:42 AM

Different ammo's would be interesting.

#137 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 278 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 19 May 2020 - 06:48 PM

You think flamers are bad, imagine inferno LRMs. :D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users