137 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Thanks much for the information Chris.
Appreciate the clarification and effort.

[Korz]

Maybe based on the info. Time and resources need to be allocated to building a better Electronic Warfare system for the game. If done right could be a better EW system for all mechwarrior systems going forward.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

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

snip

I agree completely that the Artemis SSRM / ATM loophole needed to be closed.

There needs to be more clarification about the in-game mechanics.

Thanks for the insight and continued feedback.

[Daurock]

Thanks for the clarifications, and explaining exactly how the Artemis upgrade currently works. It's VERY helpful to be using good information when discussing the current system, and what limitations to keep in mind when thinking about future changes to the systems.

As for future tuning changes -
On "Global" lock time -
I kind of wish that the powers that be would have put in the "Artemis" Lock time as the "Standard," instead of making the standard lock time the norm. Basically, for many people taking ATMS, or streaks, it was a pretty noticeable nerf. (Especially for streaks, as those weapons got a double-whammy with the lock cone nerf.) Improving the "Global " lock by 25% or so would go a long way to making these weapons feel better again.

On the role of Artemis LRM -
If the goal is to make Artemis LRM a more situational weapon, there lots of dials one can go with outside of the lock time/tracking dials. Even if if the core of artemis is accuracy, there are ways to get it outside of lock time and tracking.
One good example of such a stat is the Velocity of the Launcher. Since it is a different drop-in weapon, the velocity of it should be able to be changed independently of the "Standard " launcher, making it pretty easy to put into just the weapons that need/should have it. If we replace some/most of the "Spread and tracking" Bonus with velocity instead, it makes the Artemis launcher better on maps where you need to land those missiles faster, and its velocity would give it a slightly longer effective range. However the standard LRM would hit a good deal harder, making it better for situations where you typically CAN land most of your (Slower) missiles, and/or situations where you have a narcer available. (Maps like Tourmaline, Polar Highlands)

On the Lock Cone -
I'm going to be honest - This one seems to be a pretty direct streak nerf. I'm not sure if that's the intended plan, but it certainly pretty much removed streaks as a good weapon for a decent player, even in its niche role of "Anti-Light weapon." I know we can't adjust the weapon without also affecting every other launcher, but i would implore the devs to revert this particular change, as the lock cone doesn't have a major effect on other launchers.

Edited by Daurock, 30 August 2018 - 05:58 AM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

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

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.

"Information Warfare"

I'm happy to see this level of attention being put into missiles though. I think the community would love this level of attention to detail put towards many other things next.

[Stinger554]

Chris Lowrey, on 29 August 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Because lock-on time is a shared attribute between all of the lock-on weapons, there would be no way for us to isolate this property without it feeding into the other weapon systems under it's present tuning.

So lets say we gave ATM's or Streaks a native +50% lock-on boost. Then boosting the lock-ons your LRM's would only be a matter of equipping a single ATM 3 or Streak 2 launcher since the weapon locks themselves are shared between all of the weapons. Its part of the reason why the Artemis loophole was working the way it was.

While we are keeping everything on the table in regards to our investigations into improvements and nothing is far enough along that we can rule anything in particular out, that is the primary thing we would have to solve before we can consider a change along that line.

Hmm thanks for the reply.

Also good luck to everyone involved with that as that seems like a major pain to try and resolve.

[Stealth Fox]

Look, All I know right now, is you haven't fixed the BOTH IS and Clan insta Death Alphas that pop heavies and lower in one or two hits.. and now You've made it damn near impossible to get an LRM lock on ANYTHNG. Can't get in close and launch a UAV, because you get dead, Can't get the lights you queued with to go target spot, because they're to busy being in close knife fighters. Can't get a Meduim to do it, because they get insta cored, Can't get a heavy to do it, because it at most takes 3 hits to go down like a sack of crap. Mean while it takes far far to long to get LRMs up and going when frankly its the only way for non meta mechs to survive any more so you can soften up the try hards before you push in to attack.

It's bull crap, and as someone who mains 4 kinds of Maddog, it basically has just slapped me with the "stop having fun" stick.

You wanna have LRMs not be as good? Don't NERF them.. what is it with you guys NERFING things to make them more balanced? BUFF AMS, and for the love of God, buff the ATM health.

[HeyItsMoo]

outside-the-box suggestion for fixing ATM brawling specifically would be to decrease their arming range. ATMs can dumbfire just like MRMs (which is also what distinguishes them from SSRM). However, their 120m arming range and flight speed makes that feature almost impossible to use currently. ATMs aren't going to hit very well > 120m dumbfire, but do zero damage on 100% (theoretical) hit at 0 - 120m dumbfire.

Edited by HeyItsMoo, 30 August 2018 - 08:37 AM.

[Hydrocarbon]

And yet we have 6 years of DEV's stating flatly (about many things), "WORKING AS INTENDED".

THIS is why customers hate spreadsheet decisions - they presume too much.

[General Solo]

Jman5, on 29 August 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

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.

Narc counters derp to deadly effect so I think its ok for derp to trump decay
Just Saying 100% derp can be countered and you need to invest alot of SP to get it.

Another thing is that Target decay requires less skill points to max out so I think its fair that derp trumps decay

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 30 August 2018 - 09:22 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Jman5, on 29 August 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

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.

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.

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.

[Chris Lowrey]

TheCaptainJZ, on 30 August 2018 - 07:31 AM, said:

"Information Warfare"

I'm happy to see this level of attention being put into missiles though. I think the community would love this level of attention to detail put towards many other things next.

Truth be told, others on the team are doing the heavy lifting on the missile front. Since lock-on weapons are a tangle of dependencies on not only the weapon settings, but how info warfare, augmentation equipment like Artemis/TAG/NARC, and the lock-on mechanics themselves all feed into each other. I can design an improvement that may sound simple on the surface, but is anything but when we chart out what needs to happen code side to get it in without breaking anything else.

Believe me, we have just as much attention being put into other things as well. Chief among them on my plate at the moment is reviewing the recent results of PTS2.1 and charting a way forward on that front. So stay tuned for updates on that as well as missiles in the future.

[Thorqemada]

Thx for the update and Explanation on the Artemis case to you Chris.

You did not mention ECM countering all Artemis buffs if an ECM is anywhere between or around you and the Target and also leave out a maximun range limitation which according to my memory is ~750m and anything beyond that will not apply Artemis Boni.

The Lock-On sppeedup is known since the implementation of Artemis as Artemis affects the single one lock on mechanic in this game every Lock On Missile uses so there is only None or Anyone and you decided to go for None.

As Lock On time is of extreme imprtance the closer the front becomes this makes Forefront LRM Usage undesireable bcs the incoming damage will allway outperform the outgoing respectively not outgoing (lack of lock) damage.
Dumbfiring LRM only works on unaware of stationary Targets and even the slowest assaults can outwalk a dumbfired LRM from 400m oreven 300m with lateral evasion.

With the buffs of ECM (and i am not against that i allways felt 90m to small - i feel 120 pretty right) Artemis is already a pretty challenged upgrade regarding anything and imho it will be very hard to make it even situational attractive.

TAG unlike other Upgrades takes an Energy Slot and given the rather weak returns of lower LRM Tubecounts undesireable if you already have limited number of Energy Slots.

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).

Your posting is about Artemis and not the reduced lock on space but i feel they interplay together - the reduced lock on space plus the prolonged lock on times multiply together to double nerfs as the chance to break the lock on process increases with time aside of that making the life of Joystick Pilots or so somehow impaired Players much harder if not impossible but thats not a primary Artemis discussion so let it be an afterthought here.

I feel it needs to be clarified what type of weaponusagee you want.
For Long Range Indirect LRM usage very lttle changed.
Frontline LRM usage is hit hard and tgging a target to death usually gives not the apreciated return if you are not a superuberlurmboatassult bcs only those have the space for the many Launcher and the many ammunition needed for that playstyle.

So do you want small scale LRM usage - single LRM15 to LRM20 usage?
Do you want big scale Lurming aka Assault Superuberlurmspamboats?
If both and between what differentiates that usage?

You need to define and clarify that!

Edited by Thorqemada, 30 August 2018 - 10:36 AM.

[Daurock]

Chris 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.

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.

I think one option of Making an effective tree counter to Radar deprivation would be to add some help to other skills in the tree NOT named "Target decay," and not simply reducing the power of that partiuclar skill. It'd force branching out in the tree more to match the Radar Dep point investment, but would allow it to better compete with it if one chooses to do so.

For example - How hard would it be to bake some of the previous "Artemis lock bonus" into one of the less valuable skills in the sensor tree? Something like "Target info gathering now reduces lock-time by 5 or 10% per point, in addition to the 7% improved detailed information perk." Adding that, along with the target decay perks may well allow a sensor-tree heavy mech to compete better, and improve the take-rate of those skills (At least for lock-on types of mechs.)

Edited by Daurock, 30 August 2018 - 10:35 AM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Thorqemada, on 30 August 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

Thx for the update and Explanation on the Artemis case to you Chris.

You did not mention ECM countering all Artemis buffs if an ECM is anywhere between or around you and the Target and also leave out a maximun range limitation which according to my memory is ~750m and anything beyond that will not apply Artemis Boni.

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?

[Tier5ForLife]

Chris 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.

*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.

Wait, what was the answer? Is Artemis LOS or not?

And please do something about ATMs and Streaks.

[Davegt27]

this why I added streaks to my TW in 2014

[Andi Nagasia]

Davegt27, on 30 August 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

this why I added streaks to my TW in 2014

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,

[Andi Nagasia]

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!)

[TheCaptainJZ]

Thorqemada, on 30 August 2018 - 10:15 AM, said:

Thx for the update and Explanation on the Artemis case to you Chris.

You did not mention ECM countering all Artemis buffs if an ECM is anywhere between or around you and the Target and also leave out a maximun range limitation which according to my memory is ~750m and anything beyond that will not apply Artemis

I have never heard this here at all so I'm not surprised Chris hasn't either.