Jump to content

Public Test Session - Long Range Missile Updates Series


324 replies to this topic

#1 InnerSphereNews

    Member

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,151 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:46 AM


Public Test Session - Long Range Missile Updates Series

Wednesday January 16th 2:00PM (PDT) - Monday January 21st 12:00 noon (PDT)


Greetings ‘MechWarriors!

Welcome to the Public Test Session for the Long Range Missile Updates series. As we announced at Mech_Con 2018, we have been working internally on overhauling LRM’s current behavior. We will be conducting a Public Test to both smoke test this feature change to ensure that they operate in an active play environment without any adverse effects to game play and take feedback on the impact that this new change will have on the weapon regarding the final tuning prior to release. As always, we want to stress that individual changes within this PTS are set explicitly as testing values for us to monitor and collect data prior to final tuning. We will be closely monitoring the data gathered as well as feedback provided by active testers within the PTS forum*.

The focus of this test will be on an alteration in behavior to LRMs that will change the way that LRMs operate based on if the firer has direct line of sight to the target or not. The core intent behind this change is to move away from weapon tuning that must be balanced to account for both direct and indirect fire collectively. And instead, shift some of the weapons potency away from its indirect fire capabilities while better rewarding its use in more direct fire scenarios.

The key points of this PTS session will be:
  • New LRM behavior that will see a shallower angle of attack and boosted performance while firing on targets within direct LOS
  • Reductions to baseline LRM attributes

While we will be reducing a number of LRM weapon attributes, the net effect of these changes have been explicitly tuned to produce the following results:

  • Net Buffs to LRM performance in direct fire situations
  • Nerfs to LRM performance in indirect fire situations

We will elaborate more on this point below. Again, the values provided here are tuned explicitly for testing purposes, and as such, are not final release values. We will be reviewing both PTS data and player feedback from this PTS. Additionally, as mentioned above, one of the primary purposes of this PTS is for performance smoke testing of this new Direct / Indirect fire mode interchangeability. Please report any abnormalities in behavior beyond what is explicitly described as intended behavior below in the PTS forums*.

*PTS forums will open when the PTS is activated.



As usual, this Public Test contains a cloned version of the main player account database. This clone was created on January 14th 6:00 AM UTC. As a result, upon logging into Public Test your account will appear as it did at that time.

  • If your account was created after that time you will be unable to access the Long Range Missile Update Public Test.
  • If your login credentials were changed after that time you will need to login to this PTS using your original credentials.
  • If your account was temporarily suspended at that time please contact moderation@mwomercs.com to resolve the suspension on PTS.
  • This PTS build contains much of the content from our December 11th patch, including all of its balance and Quirk adjustments. You can find a rundown on all those changes in our December 11th Patch Notes.
  • All Quick Play matches will be 4v4
  • Skirmish and Conquest are the only two Game Modes in rotation.
  • Solo and Group Queue matches will be supported. However, you will need to Group up in groups of 2 or 4 to find a match.
  • The matchmaker will not be in effect (no PSR or Weight Class matching).
  • Private Matches will be accessible.
  • Faction Play will be accessible, but to help ensure you get matches we recommend you drop QP.
  • All PTS accounts will be boosted with MC, C-Bill, and GXP currency and Premium Time to aid with testing.
  • Please do not contact Support regarding any PTS questions or feedback. Please direct all PTS-related content to the dedicated Discussion Forum.



New LRM Direct / Indirect fire behavior:

The core change coming with this PTS will be the addition of unique LRM behavior dependent on if a firer has direct line of sight to its target or not at the time the weapon is fired.

Direct line of sight
A much shallower angle of attack for the missile volley resulting in the following benefits over the current implementation:

  • Around a 40-45% reduction in time to target.
  • Much more per-volley accuracy with the shallower trajectory more reliably hitting a target’s center mass. Which leads to both higher # of missiles hitting its target, and a greater concentration of damage on more centrally located geometry. In testing, this can become as high as a 30% accuracy increase over indirect fire. Although it should be noted that this value is based on averages tested, and will vary depending on spread a target’s geometry.
  • Less time for AMS to shot down missile volleys as they approach the target.
  • Tuned to reliably be able to fire upon enemies under vertical cover from a distance. Including under the overpasses of Crimson Straight from the Island, as well as the low ground of Rubellite Oasis from various locations.

No direct line of sight:

  • Will arc missile fire in the exact way it currently operates on live with the value adjustments described bellow.



LRM Weapon Changes:

LRM 5:
  • Spread increased to 4.6 (from 4.2)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 5 (from 4)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)

LRM 10:
  • Spread increased to 4.6 (from 4.2)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 4 (from 3)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)

LRM 15:
  • Spread increased to 5.6 (from 5.2)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)

LRM 20:
  • Spread increased to 5.6 (from 5.2)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)

C-LRM 5:
  • Spread increased to 5.0 (from 4.55)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 5 (from 4)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.9 (from 3.1)

C-LRM 10:
  • Spread increased to 5.0 (from 4.55)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 4 (from 3)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.9 (from 3.1)

C-LRM 15:
  • Spread increased to 6.0 (from 5.55)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.9 (from 3.1)

C-LRM 20:
  • Spread increased to 6.0 (from 5.55)
  • Velocity decreased to 175 (from 190)
  • Heat Penalty increased to 3.9 (from 3.1)

We have made the following video to showcase the net effect of these changes compared to how it is currently implemented on live:




For these initial values, we went with values that would result in net buffs in direct fire situations and nerfs in indirect fire. We want to stress again that these values are explicitly for testing purposes, and may change upon final release. We will be reviewing both data acquired through the PTS and player feedback within the PTS forums.

Additional Design notes:

Although not directly related to the LRM trajectory tests, we had internal adjustments to LRM heat scale value changes under investigation at the time the direct to indirect functionality got to a point where we wished to conduct a public test. Because of this, we feel it would be convenient to take the opportunity to test these changes and monitor the data in addition to the trajectory changes rather than simply release them on their own in an upcoming patch. These value changes are being considered in order to add a bit more heat to those that break the heat scale penalties when firing multiple larger launchers at once. With a higher penalty for firing large numbers of launchers, but easing up on the heat scale trigger point for smaller launchers such as LRM 5’s and LRM 10’s. As with everything else within the PTS, these values are tuned explicitly for testing purposes and are not final, and we will be reviewing both data and feedback acquired regarding these individual changes.

We would like to thank all of those that provide us with feedback on this matter. Feel free to continue to provide feedback within the newly opened PTS forum.







#2 Alcom Isst

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Professional
  • The Professional
  • 873 posts
  • LocationElo Heaven

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:56 AM

Gosh I would love to see a more MechWarrior 2 style firing pattern, where you could angle your reticle and arc missiles to focus components. This could make LRMs actually fun to use. Looking forward to it!

Edited by Alcom Isst, 14 January 2019 - 12:22 PM.


#3 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,432 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:57 AM

The changes look like a long overdue and positive change for LRMs. I look forward to the PTS. Is there any way to apply a flag to Artemis to apply more appropriate buffs for targets in direct LOS or who are hit by TAG/NARC? That'd just be icing on the cake.

So, once LRMs are out of the way, are we going to look at properly reworking Flamers? Still brokenly OP ever since the heat scale changes; and it's all due to their core mechanics.

#4 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 4,782 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:58 AM

Don't know that 4v4 will be the best format to test this out. 4v4 tends to favor brawling builds. Even if direct fire performance is improved. I doubt it'll be enough to stand up to dedicated brawlers.

#5 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 8,794 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:02 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 14 January 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

Don't know that 4v4 will be the best format to test this out. 4v4 tends to favor brawling builds. Even if direct fire performance is improved. I doubt it'll be enough to stand up to dedicated brawlers.


Well, if this PTS goes like most, it will be the same few dozen of us actually trying to test that which is intended to be tested, and another couple dozen -including PGI devs- running mechs and build having nothing to do with the subject of the PTS with most matches devolving into a 4x4 brawl regardless. Fun times, and oh so good data, coming up!

#6 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 282 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:04 PM

View PostSereglach, on 14 January 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

So, once LRMs are out of the way, are we going to look at properly reworking Flamers? Still brokenly OP ever since the heat scale changes; and it's all due to their core mechanics.


Flamers are on my list as noted in the October patch notes. Since their design was primarily tuned to the old heat system and not the one we currently have.

But as mentioned at 'Mech_Con, this has been in the works for a bit and as such is farther along. Still working on flamers on my end, but at this time, no timetable beyond that we acknowledge it is a "known issue" with the recent changes to the heat system.

While this is not the place for a Flamer discussion, (Let's try to keep it focused on the matter at hand,) we are still monitoring opinions on what people would like to see out of the Flamer considering the recent updates to the heat system.

#7 admiralbenbow123

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 310 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:05 PM

These are some nice changes and definetly a huge step in the right direction! I'm looking forward to these changes.
Now we won't have so many LRM boats that sit at the back for the whole match and pretend being super-useful.

#8 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 22,111 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:05 PM

Gotta remember everyone and their brother will bring LRMs to these "environments."

#9 MechTech Dragoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 243 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:12 PM

I'm so excited for this. While the direct fire looks good, indirect looks like it could use more spread.

#10 Kill2Blit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 183 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:13 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 14 January 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

Don't know that 4v4 will be the best format to test this out. 4v4 tends to favor brawling builds. Even if direct fire performance is improved. I doubt it'll be enough to stand up to dedicated brawlers.


I ran an lrm90 nova cat in a previous pts and the heat is low enough to spit out endless missiles. the raw dps was enough to bring people down in a 4v4 scenario. everything from this pts looks good so far, but I'd increase the base heat of lrms rather than the heat penalty.

#11 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:15 PM

The different arcs for indirect and direct LRMs are an interesting change, though an effective +50% velocity or so with LoS relative to the old 160m/sec value is cause for concern. We'll see how it feels. Heat scale penalty changes are good, but have penalties for going 2 launchers above the scale limit been increased, especially for 20-class launchers? Any plans to investigate LRM base heat, since an LRM80 70-tonner clan-side remains basically heat-neutral when chain-firing, even with these changes?

#12 Alloh

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 38 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:15 PM

I really disliked the NEW behavior. LRM should be preferably INDIRECT fire, ballistic trajectory. Direct fire is for ATMs, MRM, Streaks and SRMs.

Instead of messing up what is fine, why don't you FIX STREAKS??

Streaks are utterly broke, take too long to lock, the aim is too narrow, and no longer can kill with streaks!

Indeed, a 4x STREAK6+Active Probe+2xUAVs+ECM:counter MEDIUM or heavy is no match to a FLEA with ECM. It should be easy to kill a flea or piranha with 24xStreaks on a salvo, at least cripple it severily. Instead, the light will continue charging even after another 2 salvos, 72 streaks cannot kill a fast moving 20ton light mech!! Instead of killing, you damage all parts, head included.

Streak2 should always do 2 dmg to torsos, and the other 2dmg be randomized! instead, they rarely damage the only the torsos!!!

Streaks are broken and need a FIX and a BUFF, while LRMs are fine and should NOT be buffed with faster trajectory /accuracy.

#13 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,811 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:16 PM

Finally!

#14 suffocater

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 505 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:16 PM

This actually sounds good. I still won't play lock-on weapons on the live server, but I will produce some data.

#15 process

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:17 PM

surprisedpikachu.jpg

I never expected to see this, even as just a PTS. Hopefully there's a good balance between making LRMs generally more useful without significantly reducing TTK in LOS conditions. Also opens up some potentially interesting synergies with TAG and NARC.

#16 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,811 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:17 PM

View PostAlloh, on 14 January 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

I really disliked the NEW behavior. LRM should be preferably INDIRECT fire, ballistic trajectory. Direct fire is for ATMs, MRM, Streaks and SRMs.

Instead of messing up what is fine, why don't you FIX STREAKS??

Streaks are utterly broke, take too long to lock, the aim is too narrow, and no longer can kill with streaks!

Indeed, a 4x STREAK6+Active Probe+2xUAVs+ECM:counter MEDIUM or heavy is no match to a FLEA with ECM. It should be easy to kill a flea or piranha with 24xStreaks on a salvo, at least cripple it severily. Instead, the light will continue charging even after another 2 salvos, 72 streaks cannot kill a fast moving 20ton light mech!! Instead of killing, you damage all parts, head included.

Streak2 should always do 2 dmg to torsos, and the other 2dmg be randomized! instead, they rarely damage the only the torsos!!!

Streaks are broken and need a FIX and a BUFF, while LRMs are fine and should NOT be buffed with faster trajectory /accuracy.

Except.
It's NOT fine.
Also?
What about the trash free c3 mechanic?
You have HALF a fix Mr Lowery.

Edited by HammerMaster, 14 January 2019 - 12:20 PM.


#17 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 22,111 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:18 PM

View PostMechTech Dragoon, on 14 January 2019 - 12:12 PM, said:

I'm so excited for this. While the direct fire looks good, indirect looks like it could use more spread.

Only if it gets THIS arc.
Posted Image
Fun note:
That was a single LRM-10 so the spread is absolutely freaking terrible.

Edited by Koniving, 15 January 2019 - 12:31 PM.


#18 Steve Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,346 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:19 PM

Is it possible to make LRMs (and ATMs) into fire&forget weapon systems if you have line of sight to your target (so u can twist dmg after firing like every other weapon system)? Stare down targets is not really healthy in the long run...

#19 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 282 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:20 PM

View PostMetachanic, on 14 January 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

Heat scale penalty changes are good, but have penalties for going 2 launchers above the scale limit been increased, especially for 20-class launchers?


Yes they have. Current testing value puts it at about a 25% increase in the Heat Penalty multiplier.

#20 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 2,625 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 14 January 2019 - 12:31 PM

<*walks in, reads PTS info, gets disgusted by the information*>


Blech... All I had to do was look at the values, and then...
  • notice no fix for locking angle and/or launching angle which happens to be too narrow, and needs widening for those whose arms/hands are NOT as accurate/stable as a Competitive Level Pilot
  • see increased Spread values that will horribly mess up actually hitting a Targeted Enemy Mech, and know that will totally undo actually getting to hit properly
  • see decreased Velocity values, which will result in a Targeted Enemy Mech still being able to escape to cover too easily when they should have learned to equip AMS on their Mech in the first place
...which all then caused me to realize that...
  • LRMs are going to just be getting another troublesome NERF that they should never have had done to them
  • in particular note, these Lowered Trajectories will cause people to accidentally hit Teammates in the backs repeatedly
  • there will no longer be any ability to pitch over Teammates in Direct-Fire Situations against an Enemy Mech
...and all of this will result in further decreased usage of LRMs in general. In short, LRMs will become even more OverPowered for the Competitive Level Pilot, while everyone else gets ripped to nothing. :angry:


Yeah, I'll stop by for a few matches, regardless of whether there is an Event for it or not. But, something tells me this prediction which I have made is square-on, and LRMs are headed into permanent obscurity. Frankly, somebody's mention of issues with Streak SRMs up higher needed more focus and help, because they're already down this hole in terms of Tracking/Locking, particularly in terms of being unable to Lock-On when the Enemy Mech is literally right in your face. <_<


~Mr. D. V. "Why make it so only the Competitive Level Pilot could use LRMs? It makes no sense." Devnull





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users