Jump to content

Speaking On Missiles And Artemis

Dev Post

137 replies to this topic

#61 shameless

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 471 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 12:11 PM

fire the guys in charge of balance, they obviously don't play the game, or if they actually do, they can't be playing it much.

Find some way to fix the weapons that are actually problematic without actually nerfing an entire type of weapons

save for SRMS, and MRM, this a hard nerf to the other missile weapons. The trade for artemis was that it was also something you had to have for ALL launchers on the mech, at 1 crit and 1 ton per launcher.

#62 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 12:49 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 30 August 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:


Can I get a source on where this info is coming from within the context of MWO? While I know that this behavior is what happens within the Table Top game, I am unaware of any interactions within MWO that are similar to this. Has a Dev relayed info to this effect in the past?


Well, there were the personal Devs postings they did in the Forums which either have no description and/or are unavailabe as only red error boxes appear - i guess most of the old guys have moved on and are no longer accessible.

There are the QAs i have no clue if it was ever asked.

But somehow there was once a posting that explained Artemis by an official Person a bit more indepth how it was implemented in game.

The Artemis Lock On Thing is affected by ECM but not LOS (there was once a general visibility check influencing lock on speed but it is long gone)

Grouping/Spread and Tracking are affected by LOS.

Artemis trumps Narc but without LOS both Narc+Artemis are cancelled bcs Artemis cancels Narc and no LOS cancels Artemis resulting in no buff whatsoever
Which makes several old LRM guides i remember hint you to not equip Artemis if you want to play with a dedicated NARCer in a Group or expect to have Narc Mechs around in QP.

ECM around or between you and the target cancelling all effects includng the lock on speedup hinting to equip BAP and in my experience its true.

And that the range for Tracking/Grouping of Artemis is 750m as TAG is.

Sorry that i can not yet offer another source than my Memory. Posted Image

Edited by Thorqemada, 30 August 2018 - 12:51 PM.


#63 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,378 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 30 August 2018 - 12:55 PM

View PostAndi 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!)


BOLD?!
We asked for this NUMEROUS TIMES!
SEARCH MY NUMEROUS POSTS!
THEY SAID NO NUMEROUSLY!

My 1st post in this thread:

View PostHammerMaster, on 29 August 2018 - 03:07 PM, said:

I DO appreciate your wall of text response.
PLEASE do keep all missles on the "watch list" (to include lock cone and lock times)
PLEASE do cave and BUFF in LOS missiles (instalock, fast velocity, direct flight path, tight spread)
PLEASE do cave and NERF out LOS missiles (SLOW lock, lower velocity, arc flight path, HUGE spread)

Now.
Not please.
***** flipping fix jezuz box ECM autobreak missiles and giving UNINTENDED Null Signature System effects.
Fix free C3 style lock on so people don't riot over TRUE rules ECM.
Thank you sir.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 August 2018 - 01:06 PM.


#64 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,910 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 01:05 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 30 August 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:


So there are a few reasons for this, chief among them is that radar dep requires 40% more skill points then Target Decay, as well as you can choose to naturally pick up two nodes in Target decal along the natural path to get radar dep for yourself. The other big concern is keeping the Sensor tree as a potent option for skill point investment, so with 14 nodes being the "cost" to max out that ability, if we where to reduce it's value or re-purpose it to something similar to what it was before the skill tree what does that do to the overall viability of the tree itself? As we do not want to see the sensor tree become effectively ignored. If you invest a heavy amount of points into it, you should be properly rewarded for the investment.

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

Posted Image

This minor change would mean both skills take the same number of points to max out. It also thematically bifurcates the skill tree a little better. Bottom right is where you go to max your target decay. Bottom left is where you go to max your Radar Deprivation. You could also flip the two top Radar and Decay skills around for more symmetry, or keep it and allow for a third hybrid approach.

100% radar deprivation is incredibly frustrating to deal with if you have lock on weapons. Particularly at a higher level of play where players aren't just standing around in the open. It's why I put it on nearly all my builds. I don't know what the global stats on it are, but I think the only saving grace for lock-on weapons right now is the simple fact that the vast majority of players do not max radar deprivation. This doesn't strike me as a healthy balance situation for either side.

Both these skills are powerful against opponents that do not bother investing in the Sensor skill tree, which is why I don't think it would make the tree less popular than it already is.

Although IMO this more complicated (and harder to read) adjustment would help sell the sensor tree more.

Posted Image

Some of the changes are just to pretty it up and make it a little more symmetrical. Others such as the ECM changes allow you to pick those skills up going down one side instead of needing to go all-in to get both.

View PostChris Lowrey, on 30 August 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

But overall, this is something I'm open to looking into. I've thrown this out before, but when it comes to radar dep being at 100%, it puts me up against a bit of a design wall. Because I would love to be able to consider small amounts of radar dep as a potential 'Mech flavor quirk much like we have a handful of 'Mechs with target decay quirks. But because we already allow you to tech to 100% in the tree, we can't really use that as an option currently, since we don't want quirks + skill points to take you past a point where they stop doing anything for your build. (like a radar dep of over 100%.) The biggest concern on my side is any re-evaluation of the skill tree benefits cannot come at the expense of the viability of the tree as a whole. So any alterations would have to maintain that the points put into the tree are worth the investment.

I'm interesting in hearing more opinions on this, as its defiantly something that we can consider for future passes. But the key to any alteration in this sector would be making sure that any alteration doesn't see the tree itself fall into obscurity.


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).

#65 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,378 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 30 August 2018 - 01:08 PM

View PostJman5, 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).


Some larger mechs should have INFO WARFARE BOOSTS also.
AS7-D-DC
Cyclopseses
Crab
Shadowhawk
ETC.
So yeah give a little on lights and LORE INFO mechs.

Edited by HammerMaster, 30 August 2018 - 01:09 PM.


#66 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,378 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 30 August 2018 - 02:03 PM

UGGH. Been trying to make missiles work. Watching the lock wheel is like watching windows 10 load on a 5400 rpm platter HDD.

#67 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,507 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 30 August 2018 - 03:30 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 30 August 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:


i remember this in TT, it was interesting to have but woundnt fire unless all the fired missiles were sure to hit,
would be interesting if it was Changed to more of a support weapon than an active weapon,

just think your fighting a light, you aim toward them and SSRMs lockon and fire all on their own,
no player input required, that would be interesting, like a proximity auto weapon, would be cool, ;)


so you knew that Streaks are controlled by Targa-7 fire control system
I did not know

http://www.sarna.net...issile_Launcher



#68 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,849 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 09:50 PM

View Postcougurt, on 30 August 2018 - 02:19 AM, said:

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.


Artemis applying to Streaks (and later ATMs) has been a known factor since the intro of the IS SSRM2. It means years worth of data on their performance is based on the modified stats, which the last patch gutted along with the smaller targeting area nerf. Heck, Chris was talking about it when ATMs were introduced and in early Civil War patch in.

It was about as "exploitive" as Paul and later Chris allowed it to be, since it was a fact of life known to the design team.

#69 Brain Cancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,849 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 09:59 PM

View PostThorqemada, on 30 August 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

That makes the BAP the musthave sidegrade for Artemis Frontline usage addign another 1,5t and 2 Slots to the Artemis usage on the IS side (Clan is 1+1 afaik).


BAP/AP was never required for LRM use, it just meant that if something ECM got close enough (and once ECM radius plunged to 90m (now 120 again), it happened not often) you could still lock through the point-blank interference. It was an almost essential for Streak users though, given the close combat role.

Artemis, on the other hand directly reduced face time and firing delay. The longer it takes to lock, the worse off a missile boat is simply because getting a salvo to hit means firing within a window of opportunity. The longer locks take, the more finicky getting locks to maintain progress to a hard lock, the larger those windows have to become and the higher the risk to the missile user because he's that more exposed for that much longer. Velocity does matter in how much time you have to expose AFTER lock-on, but you've got to get lock first.

It also means the harder it gets to lock, the more people play the hail-mary-missiles game, because eventually, the risk of exposure isn't worth the reward. We've passed that point. Higher velocity with more poor lock capacity throws the balance to indirect fire from cover and distance, which IMHO is precisely the reverse of what's needed.

#70 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,376 posts
  • LocationStranded on Isla Nublar

Posted 30 August 2018 - 10:22 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 30 August 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Artemis applying to Streaks (and later ATMs) has been a known factor since the intro of the IS SSRM2. It means years worth of data on their performance is based on the modified stats, which the last patch gutted along with the smaller targeting area nerf. Heck, Chris was talking about it when ATMs were introduced and in early Civil War patch in.

It was about as "exploitive" as Paul and later Chris allowed it to be, since it was a fact of life known to the design team.


I dont think it was exploitative really. Because in tabletop streaks are way better than artemis at locking on and tracking (artemis only gives a +2 to how many missiles hit on the missile hits table but streaks make all your missiles hit 100% of the time). So it made sense that streaks would get the same lock-on bonus that artemis weapons got. Just think of it as artemis filling in for the superior targa system streaks use.

IMO the lock on nerfs should be reversed. What was the point of inadvertently nerfing SSRMs and ATMs? Just to try and nerf LRMs? Why couldnt you just do a targeted nerf against LRMs instead? Instead of blanket nerfs that affect other weapons.

View PostBrain Cancer, on 30 August 2018 - 09:59 PM, said:

BAP/AP was never required for LRM use, it just meant that if something ECM got close enough (and once ECM radius plunged to 90m (now 120 again), it happened not often) you could still lock through the point-blank interference. It was an almost essential for Streak users though, given the close combat role.


Guardian ECM shouldnt even prevent missiles from locking on.

And even the Angel ECM, which does prevent missiles from locking on, still allows you to dumbfire the missiles.

I feel like theres better ways to make ECM and BAP useful without them existing as part of an awkwardly bizarre rock paper scissors interaction.

For example:

ECM used to jam enemy sensors and cut them off from sharing sensor info with their team, but that feature was sadly removed. Even though it was the perfect ability for ECM.

And BAP doesnt even do the one thing its useful for in tabletop which is let you spot any enemy mech within 120m regardless of LoS or mech facing. It let you see enemy mechs that were behind you or behind terrain. Thats what it should do in MWO too.

Edited by Khobai, 30 August 2018 - 10:51 PM.


#71 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 11:18 PM

View PostBrain Cancer, on 30 August 2018 - 09:59 PM, said:

BAP/AP was never required for LRM use, it just meant that if something ECM got close enough (and once ECM radius plunged to 90m (now 120 again), it happened not often) you could still lock through the point-blank interference. It was an almost essential for Streak users though, given the close combat role.

Artemis, on the other hand directly reduced face time and firing delay. The longer it takes to lock, the worse off a missile boat is simply because getting a salvo to hit means firing within a window of opportunity. The longer locks take, the more finicky getting locks to maintain progress to a hard lock, the larger those windows have to become and the higher the risk to the missile user because he's that more exposed for that much longer. Velocity does matter in how much time you have to expose AFTER lock-on, but you've got to get lock first.

It also means the harder it gets to lock, the more people play the hail-mary-missiles game, because eventually, the risk of exposure isn't worth the reward. We've passed that point. Higher velocity with more poor lock capacity throws the balance to indirect fire from cover and distance, which IMHO is precisely the reverse of what's needed.


While BAP is not required for LRM it is a necessity for Artemis LRM when you acting close to the enemy bcs there is/was a significant amount of ECM Mechs around and BAP would increase the probability that your Artemis Boni would be apllied and you would not carry useless dead weight bcsd you were under OpFor ECM suppression which would kill your Artemis Boni.

So while you are technically right practically your statement is specifically applicable for non Artemis LRM backstage usage or Groupplay where you have a specific groupsetup that adresses the problem.

BAP would counter the nearest ECM inside 150m around you (maybe more with skills), hopefully only one, which would enable your Artemis Boni for any Target not ECM shielded or outside LOS.

I know that the DEVs at that time talked some lipservice like as "SSRM are not affected by Artemis" (T.Dzigielweski) so it may come to daylight that not all info given and remebered was right but that is not my task to judge or find out.

My experience is that With Artemis LRM you equip BAP or you waste it - if you equip TAG you should spare the weight and go bigger or for more ammo.

PS: I have the experience of ~23.000 matches including the last weeks of closed beta.

Edited by Thorqemada, 30 August 2018 - 11:20 PM.


#72 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 3,203 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 30 August 2018 - 11:35 PM

View PostKhobai, on 30 August 2018 - 10:22 PM, said:

ECM used to jam enemy sensors and cut them off from sharing sensor info with their team, but that feature was sadly removed. Even though it was the perfect ability for ECM.

Actually, I've seen that feature still in action. You have to put an ECM Mech near an Opposing Mech that lacks any proper counter such as BAP or ECM (running in Counter Mode)... It has NOT been removed. ECM still kills Sensors & Info Sharing. :o

~D. V. "What you talking about? ECM still kills sensors on Unprotected Mechs!" Devnull

#73 HeyItsMoo

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 2 posts

Posted 30 August 2018 - 11:37 PM

View PostAndi Nagasia, on 30 August 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

i remember this in TT, it was interesting to have but woundnt fire unless all the fired missiles were sure to hit,
would be interesting if it was Changed to more of a support weapon than an active weapon,

just think your fighting a light, you aim toward them and SSRMs lockon and fire all on their own,
no player input required, that would be interesting, like a proximity auto weapon, would be cool, Posted Image


In HBS's interpretation of the rules, every projectile has a per-hit chance; total to-hit chance is applied to each projectile (that is, each projectile launched "re-rolls" the dice with the to-hit modifier applied). At the same time SRM there doesn't have a hard max range either, just that longer ranges are significantly penalized (the range modifier). So in HBS-BT, say you're at 300m and you have a total to hit of 60% for whatever reason (moving, enemy under evasion/cover, etc.), then roughly 3 missiles on average will impact on that shot...

#74 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,503 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 12:13 AM

View PostJman5, 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?

Posted Image

This minor change would mean both skills take the same number of points to max out. It also thematically bifurcates the skill tree a little better. Bottom right is where you go to max your target decay. Bottom left is where you go to max your Radar Deprivation. You could also flip the two top Radar and Decay skills around for more symmetry, or keep it and allow for a third hybrid approach.

100% radar deprivation is incredibly frustrating to deal with if you have lock on weapons. Particularly at a higher level of play where players aren't just standing around in the open. It's why I put it on nearly all my builds. I don't know what the global stats on it are, but I think the only saving grace for lock-on weapons right now is the simple fact that the vast majority of players do not max radar deprivation. This doesn't strike me as a healthy balance situation for either side.

Both these skills are powerful against opponents that do not bother investing in the Sensor skill tree, which is why I don't think it would make the tree less popular than it already is.

Although IMO this more complicated (and harder to read) adjustment would help sell the sensor tree more.

Posted Image

Some of the changes are just to pretty it up and make it a little more symmetrical. Others such as the ECM changes allow you to pick those skills up going down one side instead of needing to go all-in to get both.



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).


Target decay can be pretty op when no derp skills are assigned, for example when using direct fire from soft cover.
For every alpha you poke he can return 2 or 3.
This happened on polar, but its not really the maps fault its just soft cover (no LOS only) is ineffective against decay, which is ok.

Admittedly on Polar I felt pretty helpless firing one alpha to his three, I knew he was going to win by attrition and their wasn't a thing I could do about it. Well played. (Moi 96 point alpha has to cool down mang)

Target Decay is a thing I actively look out for these days coz you gotta ajust your play for sure or you can get rekt.

The lower levels of derp mitigate decay some what, but full decay is still strong unless your near or at full derp.

Full derp is full counter against decay's soft cover effectiveness which I think is fair as decay should have at least one counter (ECM is moar of a general info counter) to its soft cover effectiveness.

Not having a full counter for decay reduces the effectiveness of soft cover from lrm's in general.

And if I wanna get hysterical, think about the poor little lights and the battles against streakers who wanna tear off their limbs. Nom Nom Nom, Yeah nerfing full decay could effect them too.Posted Image

Next game with full derp I rekt that guy from Polar highlands on Terra Terma from soft cover.
Must admit it was pretty satisfying.
And maybe slightly OP as I was able to sidestep his missiles as they broke lock over softcover nullifying all his attempts to hit me at the same range as on polar@400 metres

Now if you really wanna change locations of derp in the tree and tone derp down a bit, take two derps, one derp from the farthest ends of each branch/fork and swap them with the two decay closest to the root of the tree.

I'd be fine with that but prefer how it is right now.

Repectly
Homer

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 31 August 2018 - 12:51 AM.


#75 GweNTLeR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Hero of Liao
  • Hero of Liao
  • 494 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 02:17 AM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 29 August 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:


As of right now, 25% reduction to spread. It is a flat upgrade for SRM's, for LRM's / baked in ATM's, it is dependent on direct LOS with the target under a weapon lock a the time that the volley fires.

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

Edited by GweNTLeR, 31 August 2018 - 06:32 AM.


#76 Tier5ForLife

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 481 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 03:22 AM

What would be crazy but helpful would be a place somewhere, where everything in this game is explained. By people that work here. I know that sounds crazy but it could work.

You know, like other games that explain things. While it is "fun" to have players try to figure out how things work, for some of us having a "manual" would be a help.

#77 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,575 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 06:49 AM

Well, i feel no obligation to investigate into game mechanics and how they are implemeted as they were supposed to be or not.
Albeit i did a little quick and dirty test on the Testing Ground of Alpine Peaks bcs maybe i like it Cold and Icey or maybe i simply have the least trouble to find Mechs Posted Image

So i know that the testing ground probably is not the reliable source of results as i do not know how much it differnetiates nowadays from the current live game but in the end i thought i would share my quick and dirty results and you can think over them yourself if you mind so.

I dusted of my Founder Catapult - no Skills - IS LRM15/20 with and without Artemis and targeted the CN9 at I6/J7 Alpine Peaks and the Jenner down the valley and got unexpected (or not so much) results.

CN9 - salvos to kill with LRM20 having LOS
Distance = Artemis - Standard
780m = 15 - 24
600m = 15 - 18
300m = 14 - 15
190m = 08 - 12

In the Testing Ground Artemis seem to work inside Sensor Range but somehow the just above min range result is most surprising bcs i exprect a more even levelled result and not an almost 50% reduction in TK on very close range.
Standard Launcher also get better the closer you get by a huge margin and that too is not expected.

JR7 - salvos to kill with LRM15 having LOS
Distance = Artemis - Standard
780m = 20 - 22
720m = 19 - 20
190m = 31 - 30

Well, that is weird as Artemis or non Artemis is Pretty much unrecognizable and the just above min range result most unexpected.
I did know that lurming Lights suck but i did not expoect this!
Is this Testing Ground behavior, does the LRM15 suck (the LRM20 shows the same behavior with generally 5 salvos less needed) or are Lights strange and whatever does go on there?

The explanation for the nondifference of Artemis to Standard could be that Lights are just to small and the tighter grouping makes no difference at all therefore bcs it still spreads out all over a Light Mech.

The 190m result simply leves me with big question marks in my mind...visually it did seem as if half the Missiles simply flew over the Mech and never hit it.

So, we know as little as b4 and Question Marks grow more and more… Posted Image

Edited by Thorqemada, 31 August 2018 - 06:53 AM.


#78 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,910 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 11:26 AM

View PostOZHomerOZ, on 31 August 2018 - 12:13 AM, said:


Target decay can be pretty op when no derp skills are assigned, for example when using direct fire from soft cover.
For every alpha you poke he can return 2 or 3.
This happened on polar, but its not really the maps fault its just soft cover (no LOS only) is ineffective against decay, which is ok.

Admittedly on Polar I felt pretty helpless firing one alpha to his three, I knew he was going to win by attrition and their wasn't a thing I could do about it. Well played. (Moi 96 point alpha has to cool down mang)

Target Decay is a thing I actively look out for these days coz you gotta ajust your play for sure or you can get rekt.

The lower levels of derp mitigate decay some what, but full decay is still strong unless your near or at full derp.

Full derp is full counter against decay's soft cover effectiveness which I think is fair as decay should have at least one counter (ECM is moar of a general info counter) to its soft cover effectiveness.

Not having a full counter for decay reduces the effectiveness of soft cover from lrm's in general.

And if I wanna get hysterical, think about the poor little lights and the battles against streakers who wanna tear off their limbs. Nom Nom Nom, Yeah nerfing full decay could effect them too.Posted Image

Next game with full derp I rekt that guy from Polar highlands on Terra Terma from soft cover.
Must admit it was pretty satisfying.
And maybe slightly OP as I was able to sidestep his missiles as they broke lock over softcover nullifying all his attempts to hit me at the same range as on polar@400 metres

Now if you really wanna change locations of derp in the tree and tone derp down a bit, take two derps, one derp from the farthest ends of each branch/fork and swap them with the two decay closest to the root of the tree.

I'd be fine with that but prefer how it is right now.

Repectly
Homer


I would say Target Decay is useful, but only situationaly strong. Remember, you need direct LoS for it to apply. You don't get target decay through indirect locks unless the guy giving you the lock has it himself. Target decay can't help you if you can't get a lock through ECM. Then with the changes to Artemis, we're seeing longer lock times cutting into the number of volleys you can get off per lock

At the end of the day it comes down to this. A player has spent a significant amount of points in the sensor tree and he should be getting something out of that. Having another skill completely negate those points is not balanced in my mind. The only saving grace right now is the simple fact that almost no one puts points in sensor tree.

No other skill does this. It's always an escalating series of counterplays where the person who specializes this aspect more comes out on top. Take ECM for example. With no skills ECM blocks targeting until you get under 560 meters. However with full sensor range skills you bring that up to about 750 meters which is right where it would be by default. However you can then get those ECM skills which bring it down to about 400 meters vs full sensor range, but then the player can get equipment like BAP and targeting computers to bring it back up to where it was before.

This is what bothers me about allowing Radar Deprivation to just full counter lock time. It shuts it down in a way that offers no counter skill-up. You can't invest harder into target decay to counter the counter. Some people would then bring up NARC, but then I would remind them that a couple of AMS shuts that down completely leaving us back to where we were before.

Finally, I'd just like to remind everyone that we have seen this before. We had it so Target Decay would always leave you with at least a litle time vs Radar Deprivation for years and it didn't break the game.

#79 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,503 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 08:13 PM

IMO the biggest value in target decay is not getting locks but keeping locks as a target is diving for cover.
So lock time is not important in this situation, as the lermer already has a lock and decay is inactive untill the target loses LOS.

Locking on a target behind cover whilst decay is active is much less common but at least in this case lock time is a factor. So I disagree lock time is much of a factor general in terms of affecting decay as locking targets behind cover whilst Decay is active is uncommon.

Also I can't recall a time when AMS completely stopped my narcs and I have been narcing way before these latest patches. Although with the narc cool down it can be tougher, thou if you time your narc when the AMS is shooting a bunch of lerms, it will get thru.

But yeah AMS is meh, not a problem.

Edit: took out moi Narc Summoner to test, 2 games, 3 krills, two solo krills in solo Queue. Narc was never big in Quick play group que thou I havent tested that since the patch.
CW don't cont due to skill mis-match match maker reasons.

Game modes that allow skill miss-match due to lack of match maker don't count Posted Image
AMS in solo and group quick play queues are meh....where the majority of the people play!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree to disagreePosted Image

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 31 August 2018 - 10:05 PM.


#80 akolade

    Rookie

  • 8 posts

Posted 01 September 2018 - 02:14 PM

I looked through several posts about how long lock times ruin close range missile use... I haven't seen it mentioned that you can fire both LRMs and ATMs without a target lock. Simply aim at a mech's feet and the missiles will curve perfectly into their torso or legs. It even works on moving targets, if you can guess at which point on the ground to aim. Clan missiles are harder to land a full volley in the same way that clan ballistics are harder. These weapon systems can be used in short duration pokes.

Edited by akolade, 01 September 2018 - 04:40 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users