Jump to content

Public Test Session - Long Range Missile Updates Series


323 replies to this topic

#201 Pihoqahiak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 359 posts
  • LocationU.S.A., West Coast

Posted 15 January 2019 - 08:30 PM

View PostDee Eight, on 15 January 2019 - 01:54 PM, said:


It costs several hundred thousand dollars of coding investment to do a new map. What would you rather PGI address... bugs/balance or new maps ?

That is NOT accurate. Some of the very first maps cost a lot of labor hours, but that should have been streamlined drastically over the years. The cost of patches on Steam for PGI far outpaces the cost of labor they are putting on any other single aspect of the game at this point.

#202 BrunoSSace

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 1,032 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 16 January 2019 - 12:05 AM

These changes will probably have the opposite effect PGI is after. LRM Mrm 80 with lock on? Feel so sorry for anny light that gets fired at in the open.

It will make bad players worse and good player even better. Hell ill probably buy a SuperNover and praise our new STREAk over lords.

Will be loading up pts to look for myself.

#203 Vellron2005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 5,444 posts
  • LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.

Posted 16 January 2019 - 12:21 AM

I have to say I totally don't understand where this notion that changing the trajectory when in LOS is a major buff that needs to be offset with major nerfs in IDF..

It's not so much of a buff, as in "yay, we lurmers aren't useless on Rubellite now".

No buffs or nerfs to heat, spread, lock-time, or anything else EXCEPT the trajectory arc and the lock on arc (LRM bending) is needed.

The point is NOT to turn LRMs into ATMs.
The point is NOT to remove IDF viability.
The point is NOT to make LRMs a brawling weapon.

The point IS to make LRMs usefull on every map, and make it more versatile, and prevent LRM boats being useless if they have something over their heads.

THAT'S ALL.

Practically speaking, here's what is needed:

Situation 1) I'm a LRM boat, I'm standing on top of the platform on Crimson, and I have managed to get a lock on a target capping Theta. I lock, and shoot my LRMs, and the missiles go over the mech in front of me, and hit the target.

Situation 2) I'm a LRM boat, I'm standing on top of the platform on Crimson, and I have managed to get a lock on a target below the platform. so i shoot it through one of the openings in the platform. The missiles fly straight ahead, no arc, and hit the target.

Situation 3) I'm a LRM boat, I'm standing in the tunnel on Crimson, and I have managed to get a lock on a target 200 meters ahead of me in the tunnel. I shoot, and the missiles go straight to the target, no arc.

Situation 4) I'm a LRM boat, I'm standing on top of the platform on Crimson, and I have managed to get a lock on a target on the ramp leading to the top of the platform. I shoot my missiles, and they go towards the target in a low arc, but not straight, and not too high up.

Basically, the missiles need to follow the shortest possible arc, while avoiding vertical cover as much as possible, without falling on the target from straight up. if the target is in direct LOS, that means the shortest arc is a straight line. If the LRM boat is behind cover, and does not have LOS on target, it means going over cover and then down in the shortest line possible.

How hard is that to figure out?

It doesn't need anything else.

LRMs are in a good place right now, (as evidenced by the major increase of LRM boats on the field),and all that is needed is to make them usefull on high-cover maps like Solaris and Rubellite.

If you can't/won't do that, then leave them as they are.

Edited by Vellron2005, 16 January 2019 - 12:25 AM.


#204 KhanBhacKeD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 280 posts
  • LocationDans les branches du skill tree

Posted 16 January 2019 - 12:24 AM

View PostHammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

Well sir. Hopefully I'll see you on the PTS then.


What he didn't tell us he gonna to play MCII-B on the pts...

To be honest just listen to A S H and top tier players sometimes...

#205 D U N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 131 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 01:04 AM

Posted Image
Lrms can be very fun to deal with, personally more cover options on maps such as polar could help - I usually play light mechs and for all those "But they stay at the back of the map", that is why you have piranhas, locusts, all those small mechs (which obviously you don't always have), as well as AMS, ECM, really it's the way the game is designed and how small its' player base is that is the issue. In being so freeing in mech design they open up the possibility that when there is a uber lrm boat there can sometimes be no actual counter. I would argue one possible fix (which would be too much work - I know), would be the option for mech loadouts/mechs from the same weight category (essentially the FW loading interface) to be selectable. That way when it is suddenly Polar highlands or terra therma, you are not entirely traumatised by bad map.

Saying all this, this is obviously extra development that I am not expecting to happen - but if the grouping tags were restricted to either weight class (Light, Medium, Heavy, ***) or to X amount tonnes more/less than your dropping mech (I sincerely have no idea how they work it out for making pugs), it could dissipate a lot of "That combo is OP", as the issue is usually the current mech combo is just more situational. Think about how Warthunder or other games do it - usually multiple tanks, but you don't choose them all.

To the lrms however, this does seem good. It incentives direct fire somewhat, while still keeping in the main objective of a lrm, which is fire support.

#206 OmniFail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 438 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 01:39 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 15 January 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:


Thus LRM DPS needs to be nerfed, thats the core issue with it. This PTS, doesn't address that realistically.

Something a lot of people simply don't understand.


Then run chicken little.
Run to Mercville.
Tell all the Mercs.
Tell them....

That the sky is falling

#207 Steve Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,468 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 January 2019 - 02:10 AM

Quote

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...

Maybe it was missed out...

#208 Storyteller

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 359 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 January 2019 - 02:16 AM

I like the approach, but I think PGI is making too many adjustments at the same time - as usual.

Changing the flight path for direct fire in the first place would have been enough. Tuning the heatscale, the spread and the velocity at the same time ... how would you know what is good and what's not?

#209 LIGHT WOLF

    Member

  • PipPip
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 24 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 03:16 AM

Well, now it’s more profitable for the clan to sit at ATM, exactly the same behavior, then Ms. is now a direct tip, the whole meaning of the LMRs is stupidly broken, there are no bugs and optimization to be engaged in, no, we need to nervously nerf everything so that the balance in the *** goes, now the whole point LRM is a stupid plateau, it’s okay to do something for the fish, as always, so they pretend to do something .... lose it, why they’ll have less and less online -_-

#210 Culnan

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 03:19 AM

View PostHammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 10:44 AM, said:

It is not good now.
Top guys already stated if you want LRM to shine bring all launchers (SuperNova etc) and nothing else.
That's not BattleTech.
Mixed builds is Battetech.
The arms race of missle vs ams vs ammo bonus and the tonnage/efficacy buffs has huge launchers without Artemis, LOTS of ammo no backups. It's out of control.


But that is that a 'LRM issue' or a 'MWO issue'. Because you see a lot more weapon systems than just LRMs boated. Are you similarly opposed to laser vomit, MG light and quad Ultra AC Assaults? Because all of them are just as 'not Battletech' by that standard.

Now, I haven't been playing the game that long, but it does seem that this is an overcorrection. Why muck about with trajectories and velocities? If the point is to encourage LRM mechs to engage over open sights, just give them faster lock times and maybe tighter grouping for DF vs IDF. No need to encroach on other missile's niches and erode the uniqueness of LRMs.

The only LRM mech I have is a Trebuchet (with my eye on an Archer soonish), which I try to play aggressively. Thing is, it's such a squishy mech that firing direct often leads to very rapid death when you take return fire, and the need to maintain locks means you can't even twist damage all that effectively. If the 'problem issue' PGI are trying to address is 80+ missile Clan LRM boats, why don't they address those chassis specifically, rather than the weapon system itself? It sure doesn't feel like my little LRM 30 IS medium is OP, and I don't want to see it neutered in grand nerf targeting other 'problem' mechs.

#211 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 4,622 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 03:40 AM

View Postdario03, on 15 January 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

4xlb10 is fairly popular and very good on mechs like Fafnir and Slepnir.

I think I have seen few 2xLB20-X HBK-IIC and Warhammers and so on also.
LB2 and 5 are the problem because those are just bad compared to normal AC2/5 or UAC2/5

#212 Storyteller

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 359 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 January 2019 - 03:54 AM

Boating is pure military logic. If MBTs, modern aircrafts or combat ships, weapon platforms are mostly equipped with one primary weapon system and max. small/few secondary ones. Think of the battleship class Dreadnought which made all the battleships of the line with their small, middle and large artillery obsolete. Or the tank designs, which were reduced to one main gun and max. a few machine guns as support. Tanks like the russian multi turret tank T-35 were just ineffective.

So the original BattleTech designs are mostly flawed ... but IMHO fun to play. I would love to have a stockmech mode. But I guess that even such a mode would be dominated by those variants, which would get closest to boating. Like the Warhammer-6D, the Awesome-8Q or the Grasshopper.

So if you like it or not, boating with rockets, lasers, PPCs or ballistics will be always the first choice for the majority of players.

#213 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,104 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 16 January 2019 - 04:19 AM

So, you think you could introduce ammo-switching for ATMs next?

#214 Toxicresidue

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 80 posts
  • Locationcorpus christi texas

Posted 16 January 2019 - 05:11 AM

View PostD V Devnull, on 14 January 2019 - 12:31 PM, said:

<*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. Posted Image



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. Posted Image


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

you nailed it man, that's what I have been saying for a while but not as succinctly and politely as you havePosted Image

#215 Major Major Catch 22

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 82 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 05:11 AM

PGI should actually worry about what the new players want that grow the community, not the old guard who will stick around no matter what.

So the metta changes, we adapt and change too, I like it, keeps the game interesting

#216 DAEDALOS513

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Flame
  • The Flame
  • 2,630 posts
  • LocationArea 52

Posted 16 January 2019 - 05:47 AM

View PostMajor Major Catch 22, on 16 January 2019 - 05:11 AM, said:

PGI should actually worry about what the new players want that grow the community, not the old guard who will stick around no matter what.

So the metta changes, we adapt and change too, I like it, keeps the game interesting

Because of their inexperience, new players don't know what's good for them yet.. like a child that wants to eat candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Making LRMs this viable will cause better players to start using them and TTK will go down.. trust me. Direct fire lrms were OP when they launched it by accident that one day.. they were like streaks on steroids.. even better than ATM's in my opinion because of the higher alpha at lower heat..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 16 January 2019 - 06:24 AM.


#217 Hauptmann Keg Steiner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 289 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 06:11 AM

View PostHammerMaster, on 15 January 2019 - 10:44 AM, said:

That's not BattleTech.
Mixed builds is Battetech.

Good to know the Catapult A1, the Yeoman, the Nova Prime and -H, the base Supernova, and a dozen more stock mech loadouts I'm too tired to recall right now aren't Battletech. Even though they're all from TT Battletech.

#218 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 16 January 2019 - 06:58 AM

View PostIdToaster, on 16 January 2019 - 06:11 AM, said:

Good to know the Catapult A1, the Yeoman, the Nova Prime and -H, the base Supernova, and a dozen more stock mech loadouts I'm too tired to recall right now aren't Battletech. Even though they're all from TT Battletech.

Yes. Yes they are. In a fire support lance. Just a few of the many.
Also look at the much more common mechs that have loadouts (weird to MWO) like 1 LRM 10 or 15.

#219 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 16 January 2019 - 07:01 AM

View PostCulnan, on 16 January 2019 - 03:19 AM, said:


But that is that a 'LRM issue' or a 'MWO issue'. Because you see a lot more weapon systems than just LRMs boated. Are you similarly opposed to laser vomit, MG light and quad Ultra AC Assaults? Because all of them are just as 'not Battletech' by that standard.

Now, I haven't been playing the game that long, but it does seem that this is an overcorrection. Why muck about with trajectories and velocities? If the point is to encourage LRM mechs to engage over open sights, just give them faster lock times and maybe tighter grouping for DF vs IDF. No need to encroach on other missile's niches and erode the uniqueness of LRMs.

The only LRM mech I have is a Trebuchet (with my eye on an Archer soonish), which I try to play aggressively. Thing is, it's such a squishy mech that firing direct often leads to very rapid death when you take return fire, and the need to maintain locks means you can't even twist damage all that effectively. If the 'problem issue' PGI are trying to address is 80+ missile Clan LRM boats, why don't they address those chassis specifically, rather than the weapon system itself? It sure doesn't feel like my little LRM 30 IS medium is OP, and I don't want to see it neutered in grand nerf targeting other 'problem' mechs.

I've complained over AC Spam before that people don't cry about.
Laser vomit HBRs and EBJs that waste IS side torsos in one volley also get the pass.
So its not me but yes. People don't cry about those.

#220 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 16 January 2019 - 07:05 AM

View PostKhanBhacKeD, on 16 January 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

What he didn't tell us he gonna to play MCII-B on the pts...

To be honest just listen to A S H and top tier players sometimes...

Yes. Sometimes.
I said AFTER the PTS I'll look at what he says.
It doesn't change the fact that his tact is...lets say. Abrasive.
At best.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users