Jump to content

Speaking On Missiles And Artemis

Dev Post

136 replies to this topic

#21 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 313 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 05:14 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 29 August 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:

Ah you told me in the last thread that LOS wasn't required for Artemis spread bonuses after you'd checked. (I said they were LOS only)

Was that not the case after further checking or was it changed as a part of this change?


That was what I was informed at the time back when the latest info I had was based on our investigations into ATM's when I was on Civil War tech. With the investigation into both the changes for August, as well as when we did a full re-evaluation to make sure all the info I'm allowed to broadcast out in this thread is fully vetted and verified by everyone involved with these things on the team, I was given this updated info which I know unfortunately directly goes against what I have put out there in the past. (Part of the reason why this took so long to get out as I wanted to make absolutely sure we where not going to go back on anything here at a later date unless there was later mechanic changes.)

I apologize for the crossed messages as I was working off of the info I had at the time. The info present here has been verified at multiple levels to ensure that we are getting the right info out to everyone on this matter right now.

*Edit*

Feel free to continue the discussion, but I'm heading out for the day. If there is anything further I can comment on I'll be sure to get to it tomorrow morning.

#22 0Jiggs0

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 05:21 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 28 August 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

...we are also looking into further changes to certain mechanics to push for more of a divide between direct fire lock-ons, and indirect fire lock-on missiles.


That would be lovely. Thank you.

#23 Hiten Bongz

    Member

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

Posted 29 August 2018 - 05:22 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 29 August 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

Feel free to continue the discussion, but I'm heading out for the day. If there is anything further I can comment on I'll be sure to get to it tomorrow morning.


Thanks for the clarity and continuing to look into these issues. Obviously I'm a bit salty at the changes Posted Image but maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel, and closing the Artemis loophole allows for direct buffs to ATMs and Streaks to bring them back up to - at least - where they were before the patch.

#24 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,367 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 29 August 2018 - 05:24 PM

View Post0Jiggs0, on 29 August 2018 - 05:21 PM, said:


That would be lovely. Thank you.

Lovely is an understatement.
It's basically what LRM enthusiasts and detractors BOTH CALLED FOR!
An issue I'm confident if community polled we can show Paul his high ideal get together % agreeance.

Edited by HammerMaster, 29 August 2018 - 05:28 PM.


#25 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Referee
  • CS 2019 Referee
  • 7,606 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 29 August 2018 - 05:57 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 29 August 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:


That was what I was informed at the time back when the latest info I had was based on our investigations into ATM's when I was on Civil War tech. With the investigation into both the changes for August, as well as when we did a full re-evaluation to make sure all the info I'm allowed to broadcast out in this thread is fully vetted and verified by everyone involved with these things on the team, I was given this updated info which I know unfortunately directly goes against what I have put out there in the past. (Part of the reason why this took so long to get out as I wanted to make absolutely sure we where not going to go back on anything here at a later date unless there was later mechanic changes.)

I apologize for the crossed messages as I was working off of the info I had at the time. The info present here has been verified at multiple levels to ensure that we are getting the right info out to everyone on this matter right now.


All good mate - Thanks for clarification.

Good to know the test a few people did a while back wasn't them being crazy nor what I was seeing in-game as well.

I gotta say the level of Dev clarification/interaction the past 2-3 months has been top notch. Keep up the information flow, helps players understand, even if we don't agree.

#26 Shanrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 199 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 06:04 PM

So is there a place where I can see the current effects of artemis for all missile types?

Is it now purely spread reduction for lrms/srms only? For lrms is the spread reduction only in effect when in LOS?

Edited by Shanrak, 29 August 2018 - 06:10 PM.


#27 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Silver Champ
  • CS 2019 Silver Champ
  • 4,558 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 29 August 2018 - 06:53 PM

I think tracking strength bonus can return to artemis with no problem.

Also, more spread reduction bonus... along with less base spread of all SRMs would be a nice touch too.

#28 IshanDeston

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 62 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:03 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 28 August 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

Ultimately we need to balance the game around the viability of both the baseline missile launchers, plus the various interactions with other enhancement equipment including Artemis. So while Artemis is being investigated for further improvements, I do wish to put out there that these improvements will be geared towards more situational buffs to the equipment so its inclusion is not as much of a binary upgrade over standard launchers, as it would be about rewarding skilled use of Artemis based systems.


First off, thank you for the post. And second of, i would like to see Artemis provide bonuses based on Range to the target, rewarding the use of LRM in a less than max range setting and encouraging people piloting LRM boats to be closer to the enemy.

A reverse ECM effect could be such an idea. What do i mean with reverse ECM effect? I mean that Tracking of Missiles and maybe even lock-on times are boosted based on how close the Radar signal is you are receiving. It would leave things virtually unchanged for long range and passive use... but if you are up close and personal with your LRM, skirting the minimum range of your LRM for example, you would be rewarded with faster lock-ons, maybe the ability to hit light mechs easier, that sort of thing. Of course, in an ideal world Artemis would allow you to select which component the missiles track <grins>

I do not think we should go back to a LOS based bonus system with Artemis, as i feel that is what we have TAG for. You could boost the effect of TAG on lockon times a little bit, which would indirectly reward the use of TAG more, especially for Streaks.

You basically would have NARC, which boosts tracking for indirect fire, as it should be. Artemis to provide bonuses based on Proximity rewarding a more 'high risk' playstyle. And then having TAG for LOS... that way Artemis wouldn't be a straight upgrade, but would require you to play more risky to get more use out of it, as opposed to standing 600+ meters away from the fight.

Alternatively... it would be nice if maybe Artemis would change the firing profile of the LRM. Have IS LRM arm below the minimum range... and maybe cluster Clan LRM closer together to make them a bit more resistant to AMS? I would prefer the proximity solution tho.

But i don't think we need more encouragement to use TAG for LRM, since you already get a Cbill reward and such... adding a LOS component back to Artemis... i am not sure i would prefer that. I much rather would have a Proximity based reward system to encourage people not to stay to far back and instead with the groups.

Edited by IshanDeston, 29 August 2018 - 07:06 PM.


#29 Chados

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,947 posts
  • LocationSomewhere...over the Rainbow

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:10 PM

You know, one of the things that really made LRMs useful was the ability to do missile tricks like missile bending. Killing the darn lock cone just hurt everyone. I was running an assault tonight with a LRM15 equipped in its one missile slot (it’s hardpoint starved), and it really is hard to use, you’ve got to stare like you would when ripping off uAC10 salvoes. And a lot of people would be “ya cool, that’s how it oughta be.” Except that one LRM15 does a ton more spread and less damage, and takes longer to do it, than one uAC10 does. Used to be I could use the lock cone and do some missile tricks to make it worthwhile when I didn’t have LOS for my gun and lasers. Now, that’s a real unlikely scenario. ECM buffs I could deal with if we’d just get active probes buffed back to 360m like back in the day. And forget targeting fast moving lights in close. I was trying to spike a Piranha moving laterally across my face (I’m having to dance to keep from getting backstabbed and nibbled to death) with my gun and lasers (no, I’m not spudly enough to try to use LRMs against a Cipher doing a crotch-lock) and of course the lock ring keeps coming up. It locked not one time in a 40-second fight til I splatted the little monster with a one-two from my gun and lasers. And his Locust partner that ran away once I got my back against a wall I never even had the lock ring pop up til he was running up a hill 400 meters away. If I’d been using streaks, forget it, man. I’d not have got off a single shot.

Is this really what you all wanted, Chris?

These nerfs did zippo to rein in the boats, which pack four cLRM20 without Artemis anyway and don’t need the open lock cone. I’d be way less salty if the darn lock cone was where it was in 2016.

#30 Hiten Bongz

    Member

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

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:16 PM

View PostChados, on 29 August 2018 - 07:10 PM, said:

ECM buffs I could deal with if we’d just get active probes buffed back to 360m like back in the day. And forget targeting fast moving lights in close. I was trying to spike a Piranha moving laterally across my face (I’m having to dance to keep from getting backstabbed and nibbled to death) with my gun and lasers (no, I’m not spudly enough to try to use LRMs against a Cipher doing a crotch-lock) and of course the lock ring keeps coming up. It locked not one time in a 40-second fight til I splatted the little monster with a one-two from my gun and lasers. And his Locust partner that ran away once I got my back against a wall I never even had the lock ring pop up til he was running up a hill 400 meters away. If I’d been using streaks, forget it, man. I’d not have got off a single shot.

Is this really what you all wanted, Chris?

These nerfs did zippo to rein in the boats, which pack four cLRM20 without Artemis anyway and don’t need the open lock cone. I’d be way less salty if the darn lock cone was where it was in 2016.


This really is a huge issue right now and is grinding my gears to hell and back. Decently fast lights - so, nearly all of them - with an ECM are nearly unlockable if they are even somewhat close to you. It's infuriating. If you DO manage to get a lock, well...you better not move your crosshair off of their actual hitbox, otherwise it's back to no-lock city for you...

Edited by Hiten Bongz, 29 August 2018 - 07:22 PM.


#31 Bwah Ha Ha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 157 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:20 PM

View PostDame Irulan, on 29 August 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

While I appreciate the thoughtful writeup, close LRM play still is out the door now. Short range locks are too difficult to get and to hold. Artemis isn’t worth its tonnage anymore either. Just not running any homing missiles at all anymore and the only ones I see in queue now are LRM-80 Supernovas hanging back at map edges and mindlessly button mashing endless blue streams. Yeah, that’s not too fun unless I’m in a sneaky light pounding on them. And I haven’t seen IS LRMs in a drop at all, since the patch.


In the latest FP events I have a whole drop deck of IS LRM mechs that I use depending on the map. Now for SSRMs those have been disappearing from my mechs.

#32 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,828 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:40 PM

Hey Chris, one thing I would like you guys to investigate is Radar Deprivation versus Target Decay.

It used to be back when they were modules that Radar Deprivation would counter normal lock time, but leave whatever extra Target Decay time the module added. Essentially this made the two modules pretty well balanced against one another. However, now Radar deprivation completely hard counters normal lock time AND Target Decay.

I feel like this isn't really well balanced to have Radar Deprivation just be flat out superior to Target Decay.

#33 Tamerlin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 319 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 07:47 PM

Thanks, Chris. With the recent Artemis changes I think it would be helpful to document what the current TAG and Narc bonus really are. And I agree with Jman5 that a better explanation of Target Decay and Radar Deprivation would also be helpful.

#34 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,450 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 08:01 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 28 August 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

As many have pointed out, although these changes do close the various loopholes that Artemis provide, the current implementation of the system can appear fairly lackluster in its current form. This is something that after observing the recent release we can get behind and consider further changes to enhance Artemis, but there is an important note that I wish to put out there: Artemis has often been a system whose use is treated as a raw upgrade. Either the effects granted are good enough to use, there for, you put it on nearly everything to the detriment of builds that don't utilize it, or it simply isn't worth the tonnage, and there for not taken at all. Ultimately we need to balance the game around the viability of both the baseline missile launchers, plus the various interactions with other enhancement equipment including Artemis. So while Artemis is being investigated for further improvements, I do wish to put out there that these improvements will be geared towards more situational buffs to the equipment so its inclusion is not as much of a binary upgrade over standard launchers, as it would be about rewarding skilled use of Artemis based systems.


Emphasis mine.

Honestly, I believe this way of looking at it is flawed, missing the nature of the game. At no point has Artemis been a raw upgrade. You sacrifice weight and slots to make the weapon more effective; that means you sacrifice speed, cooling, ammo, other weapons, and/or durability to bring more effective launchers. The reason you saw it being taken almost all the time is because the nature of the game rewards specialist builds and, if you are specializing in SRMs, then you are obviously going to devote everything into maximizing their effectiveness.

That said, I am all for weapons increasing rewards for skilled use. SRMs used to bloom and converge and skilled pilots could hold range to focus damage; Artemis playing into that again would be pretty awesome.

#35 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 2,835 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 29 August 2018 - 08:56 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 29 August 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

*Edit*

Feel free to continue the discussion, but I'm heading out for the day. If there is anything further I can comment on I'll be sure to get to it tomorrow morning.

Pardon my initial bluntness, but is there any chance you can comment on why the Lock Angle was shotgunned all the way down into hell? :blink:

To give you a rough idea --- I know of people with Physical and/or Other Medical Issues, and they were dependent upon having a wide-enough Lock Angle due to not being able to move their hands smoothly. Like, they're stuck making coarse movements with their hands for the rest of their natural lives, so their only option is to use LRMs to even be able to play MWO at all. Hell, this narrowed Lock Angle is making it rather unusually hard for me to establish a Lock-On, so I know it's making it effectively impossible for them, and I've even heard return comments to that effect from those people. :(

On top of this, those that want LRM Support in order to get their Brawler builds in close are now therefore ending up not getting anywhere near the level of Support that they find useful. Instead, Sniper-types and the like are able to suppress Brawlers and keep them trapped in cover, if not just outrightly wipe them away. If we (meaning you -- the PGI Devs, and us -- the Community -- as well) want teams to work together, forcing LRM users (and unfortunately in this case, ATM users) to try to stay hidden all the time does NOT help. Further, this has even more weight due to the Front-Line Pilots who want the Whole Team to share Armor and stick together to push into the Enemy Force all as one group. If those LRM/ATM users are going to properly stick with the Group, and receive cover from their team in return, then such slow Lock-Ons and more particularly the nonexistent Initial Locking Angle are literally counterproductive and stop the intent of Teamwork dead cold. Worse, it unnecessarily splits the group as the LRM/ATM users find themselves forced to hang back further than their Team wants and/or needs them to. :mellow:

Adding to this is when LRM/ATM users get into close range, having such a small angle to maintain their Lock within prevents them from twisting to survive in combat. Being as Missiles do NOT posess a "fire and forget" design, unlike at least one of the earlier MechWarrior games seemed to have, it seems like either the baseline Lock-On time needs to be sped up hard or the Lock Maintaining Angle needs to be widened severely. Basically, either we need easier and speedier Lock-Ons, or we need to have Long-Term Lock-On Maintaining, being as it obviously doesn't have to be both, but just one or the other. Otherwise, we just end up with another anti-Teamwork situation where it causes LRM/ATM users to hang back unnecessarily. Of course, if we keep the LRM/ATM users up close to the Brawlers for long enough, they might also finally understand why forcibly traffic-jamming the Whole Team constantly is a bad idea and why everyone has a particular distance because of their Battle Role to operate at. :huh:

Stacked with all this of course is the Massive Knock-On Effect against Streak SRMs. They're needed usually as an Anti-Light Weapon, and I've already been reading reports elsewhere on the forums of people having worse than massive trouble (category of 'impossible to use'... rage-in-post included) with those due to being point-blank against those Light Mechs. It's much harder to track something moving extremely fast when it's right in your face, unlike what people would presume. Which of course brings me back to... Why again was the Lock Angle shotgunned all the way down into hell? :wacko:

~Mr. D. V. "So given all this logic I just posted, why did LRM/ATM/SSRM users lose their needed Lock-On Angle?" Devnull





(p.s.: Thanks to factors beyond my control, this post took about 3 hours to put up. I almost lost my thoughts in the wind. I get the feeling just after I push the 'Post' Button, I'm going to see a sudden blast of everything posted inbetween. Oh well, here it comes... Yikes!)

#36 Anti10188

    Member

  • Pip
  • Shredder
  • 15 posts

Posted 29 August 2018 - 11:45 PM

All this work only be case of me....
Hireme already,how many times i need to tell you this...
Is Lrms to havy to carry proper loadout what make it very hard to penetrate 3xAMS, and no damage at close range.
Proper lrms used in close 250-300m is optimal, to push enemys, assault them, makethem run, lose position. it is a tactical weapon wich need big knowledge to proper use.
Most people who you see in random 90% of them have NO idea of ideal use.
and it need more skill then daka or vomit.
Positioning, terrain knowledge, WHO to shoot, WHEN to shoot. how to hold lock (ARM actuators usage).

LERN to play Boys,and stop cry.

May suggest to make IS more playeble and in educationalpurposes give them a 10% bust to speed for first 100-150m.

#37 Aidan Crenshaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 1,600 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 12:45 AM

I think the 250k/125k retrofit costs for should be removed now, shouldn't they?

#38 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 4,973 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 01:24 AM

Thank you for the explanation on tracking strength Chris, could you also provide an explanation on missiles spread effects? Artemis reduces spread by 25%, but do NARC and Tag reduce spread as well? Do they interact, i.e. Artemis spread replace NARC spread effects?

#39 cougurt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 519 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 02:19 AM

View PostNavid A1, on 29 August 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

I think tracking strength bonus can return to artemis with no problem.

Also, more spread reduction bonus... along with less base spread of all SRMs would be a nice touch too.

if i'm understanding it correctly, the tracking strength bonus was also being applied to ATMs and streaks, so i'm not sure they can do that without partially reintroducing the artemis exploit.

#40 Chados

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,947 posts
  • LocationSomewhere...over the Rainbow

Posted 30 August 2018 - 02:59 AM

View PostBwah Ha Ha, on 29 August 2018 - 07:20 PM, said:


In the latest FP events I have a whole drop deck of IS LRM mechs that I use depending on the map. Now for SSRMs those have been disappearing from my mechs.


And let me guess: You work at near maximum range with Clan mechs packing all LRMs that never bothered with Artemis in the first place because you can carry more tubes and ammo without it? You’re clearly not the audience for that post.

It’s concerned with using locking missiles...LRMs in that example...at CLOSE RANGE. Not boating 60+ tubes in a Clan omni or assault, staring at enemies from behind a rock or building while working off a teammate’s NARC or TAG to get locks. We all know that the nerfs didn’t touch that style of play. In fact, we all know that max-range spudtastic turret warrior now is the ONLY effective way to employ LRMs thanks to the scale of the nerfs. And that is why we’re salty about “shotgunning” the lock ring (as DV DevNull most artistically put it) and nerfing Artemis locking time and tracking strength to the point that Artemis *has* no point, while buffing ECM and doing precisely nothing for active probes. The salt is coming from close-range team players who were sharing armor and bending missiles around obstacles, and who were using streaks to counter Piranhas, and who were using ATMs as something other than bigger MRMs with fewer tubes. Not boaters raining from the edge of the map.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users