Jump to content

Public Test Session - Long Range Missile Updates Series


323 replies to this topic

#41 Daurock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 529 posts
  • LocationSouth Dakota

Posted 14 January 2019 - 01:57 PM

Knee Jerk Reactions (Before testing)

1 - I like the direction that we're heading in here. Buffing the direct fire properties of the weapon, while lowering the Indirect capabilities is a generally good path to take.

2 - I'm a little dubious about the "Arc change" being actually effective at reducing "Time to target." Between a 2 second lock time, and a roughly 3 second flight time for something at 500m away, the time between "spot" and "hit" will still be pretty dramatically bad. Due to the wording of the OP, I'm unsure if the Velocity is changing based on if you have LOS, or if its just the flight path. Because of this, stuff that pokes will still be able to pretty dramatically out-fight a LRM user, without some sort of Lock time improvement.

3 - I'd be incredibly curious to see what would happen if, instead of flight time and path changes, they instead improved lock times dramatically (Think near instant) when you have LOS. (While keeping the noted spread and velocity nerfs for indirect fire) Doing this would probably be an even more dramatic change than what we're having here, but, would make it a better direct fighting weapon than the proposed changes due to the fact that the LRM user can more quickly duck behind cover.

Edited by Daurock, 14 January 2019 - 02:09 PM.


#42 Hadesuwa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 170 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:03 PM

View PostVellron2005, on 14 January 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

LRMing is hard enough as it is

That's a mighty fine statement however you look at it but surely you've said it in jest. LRM never was intended and never will be a hard weapon to use. Sure enough it's sometimes hard to catch that red square but most of the time people are doing just fine.
On the other hand I agree completely it's a hard weapon to utilise efficiently without being a dead weight on the back of your team but to help you in this quest you had your time with the recent LRM buffs or was it not sufficient perhaps?
In Conclusion I agree with your flow of ideas on this update. It's indeed a nerf with extra steps but there a certrain beauty this time around don't you see it? Posted Image

#43 Shanrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 200 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:04 PM

View PostVellron2005, on 14 January 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

2) I applaud the trajectory changes, and making the missiles travel faster when in LOS.. but the nerfs to IDF, those I just cannot justify with any reason other than alot of people who are against LRMs wanting to see them made into ATMs.


Guess what else can't do IDF at all, every other weapon system in the game. Why should LRMs gain a buff to direct fire yet remain strong in IDF mode? Why can't I have my lasers or ballistics curve and hit people who are hiding behind hills as well?

IDF fire needs to die, buff direct fire as much as possible to counter act it.

View PostDaurock, on 14 January 2019 - 01:57 PM, said:

3 - I'd be incredibly curious to see what would happen if, instead of flight time and path changes, they instead improved lock times dramatically (Think near instant) when you have LOS. (While keeping the noted spread and velocity nerfs for indirect fire) Doing this would probably be an even more dramatic change than what we're having here, but, would make it a better direct fighting weapon than the proposed changes due to the fact that the LRM user can more quickly duck behind cover.


Remember you don't have to have lock on target to shoot your lrms, with the boost in velocity you can deadfire it on slow targets and expect most missiles to hit as long as they aren't extremely far away.

#44 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • CS 2022 Gold Champ
  • 4,932 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:14 PM

I should say that the changes being tested seem promising.

I'm eager to test them out.


Also, would appreciate it if you could add the spread with LOS stat to the ones you already presented as well. Only thing that is mentioned in the PTS notes is that the spread will be "up to 30%" less. Up to 30% is not a stat, its more about % of hits which depends on target size, direction, etc.
What is the actual spread reduction %?

Edited by Navid A1, 14 January 2019 - 02:14 PM.


#45 Daurock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 529 posts
  • LocationSouth Dakota

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:17 PM

View PostShanrak, on 14 January 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:


Remember you don't have to have lock on target to shoot your lrms, with the boost in velocity you can deadfire it on slow targets and expect most missiles to hit as long as they aren't extremely far away.


I'm aware that you generally don't HAVE to lock, but with the velocities involved, blind firing them is still a recipe for disaster, especially once you get out past 300m or so. We're not talking MRM like velocites here. LRMS even at the fast end are roughly half of that, which is ample time for even slower mechs to roll off the damage, or walk it off entirely.

#46 Axys Rageborn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Moon
  • The Moon
  • 125 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:19 PM

Looking forward to having a go as it was fun when they were accidentally changed in the last patch. To those who say the arc should be higher as to not shot team mates in the back I am sorry that you will now have to position better to fire your missiles just like everyone else.

With these changes would it be possible to add nodes to the skill tree that reduces the minimum distance before doing damage? say like 5% per node for a total of say 20%? This way it would be 144m before doing damage with LRMs. The reason being is that with the better trajectory there will be more places to use them and it shouldn't be handicapped by a dead zone.

#47 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 318 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:28 PM

View PostNavid A1, on 14 January 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

I should say that the changes being tested seem promising.

I'm eager to test them out.


Also, would appreciate it if you could add the spread with LOS stat to the ones you already presented as well. Only thing that is mentioned in the PTS notes is that the spread will be "up to 30%" less. Up to 30% is not a stat, its more about % of hits which depends on target size, direction, etc.
What is the actual spread reduction %?


Mechanically, there is none currently, but practically, the lower angle of attack results in an up to 30% accuracy boost over the indirect angle of attack, as well an overall greater concentration of the fire focusing on more centralized components. Taken from internal testing data and the results of how many missiles per-volley hit with the new spread values indirectly vs. directly and monitoring the locations hit by those that did hit.

Because of this, at this time, we want to see the effect of what the impressions of what the trajectory change does on its own when the natural angle of attack results in higher values over indirect values. This is part of why we are conducting this PTS as we wish to observe how well these numbers hold up in live testing. And it is also why we made the note that this number will depend on factors like a target's geometry (As a King Crab will probably see different results from indirect fire compared to something like an Annihilator or Atlas.) In this case, we are going by physical results from internal testing and not just the weapon value settings.

#48 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 14 January 2019 - 02:31 PM

View PostShanrak, on 14 January 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:

IDF fire needs to die, buff direct fire as much as possible to counter act it.


See, this is the type of people I'm talking about when I say..

View PostVellron2005, on 14 January 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

but rather, it feels like a nerfbat to the face, and catering to those who would rather have us at the front, using ATMs.


People who are not dedicated LRM users will never understand why this is a big nerf, and not a good thing, except for the trajectory changes..

I just hope there are a few Lurmers sitting in the Dev office, that might understand..

#49 dario03

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander
  • 3,623 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:40 PM

To me it looks like the current set of nerfs won't be enough to offset the buffs. But I guess that's what a pts is for, have to see how it goes.

#50 IronEleven

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 84 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:53 PM

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

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


If you think it takes a comp player to hold a lock, for the love of god turn your sensitivity down.

#51 Felbombling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,975 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:55 PM

The players were calling for these flight patterns waaaaay back during Closed Beta. A hearty slap on the back for listening to the Community, PGI. :P

#52 Kaeb Odellas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,934 posts
  • LocationKill the meat, save the metal

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:56 PM

Judging from the screenshot, I feel like the direct flight would be easier for hill peekers to avoid.

#53 dwwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 476 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 02:58 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 14 January 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:


Mechanically, there is none currently, but practically, the lower angle of attack results in an up to 30% accuracy boost over the indirect angle of attack, as well an overall greater concentration of the fire focusing on more centralized components. Taken from internal testing data and the results of how many missiles per-volley hit with the new spread values indirectly vs. directly and monitoring the locations hit by those that did hit.

Because of this, at this time, we want to see the effect of what the impressions of what the trajectory change does on its own when the natural angle of attack results in higher values over indirect values. This is part of why we are conducting this PTS as we wish to observe how well these numbers hold up in live testing. And it is also why we made the note that this number will depend on factors like a target's geometry (As a King Crab will probably see different results from indirect fire compared to something like an Annihilator or Atlas.) In this case, we are going by physical results from internal testing and not just the weapon value settings.


What is the role of LRMs ?
Answer me that question svp.

I see it as versatile, if inefficient fire support. It trades sub-optimal damage application for versatility in selecting and engaging targets, with extra caveats in taking more time to damage the target ( Time to Target ) and the lock requirements.

LoS LRM salvo = straight trajectory makes it useless in the fire support role as there are much better weapons in the DF role. We still cant trade damage with DF weapons due to lockon b4 fire and lock needed after firing. DF weapons can torso twist to spread damage...what does LRM get ? Hell, ATMs are better in the DF role due to speed, damage and trajectory, but atleast we GET that damage with ATMs.

If LRM x many is penalized I see more people taking NARC as an accessory ( which I already do 1/3 of the time ) watch the crying ensue when people really cant hide due to the NARC beacon.


So again:
What is the Role of LRMs ?

Edited by dwwolf, 14 January 2019 - 03:01 PM.


#54 Shadowomega1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 987 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:06 PM

Would keep the Velocity unchanged, and adjust the angle of attack on direct fire just a tad up so it is different from ATMs, allowing for the launcher to fire over allies running in front of them, or over some of those more solid shipping containers that a mech like the Hunchback peak over and fire it weapons.

#55 Shanrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 200 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:08 PM

View PostVellron2005, on 14 January 2019 - 02:31 PM, said:


See, this is the type of people I'm talking about when I say..

People who are not dedicated LRM users will never understand why this is a big nerf, and not a good thing, except for the trajectory changes..

I just hope there are a few Lurmers sitting in the Dev office, that might understand..


And dedicated lurmers will never understand how IDF takes all the fun out of the game for everyone else. They're just chortling in the back enjoying their meaningless damage numbers. IDF makes the game grind to a halt, makes everyone take cover until the lurmer changes targets. Being the only IDF weapon, it means they are the only ones who can shoot with impunity, a completely one sided game play. Also, lurmers will always vote polar for the lack of cover, a map no one else enjoys, again taking the fun out of the game for anyone else.

Someone suggested a while ago that LRM fire should make you target-able so lurmers can shoot back at other lurmers. At least that way they'll get a taste of their own medicine.

#56 HammerMaster

    Member

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

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:14 PM

I'll remind everyone to get on the test server before we bash the change.

#57 Antares102

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • Death Star
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:20 PM

Something that nobody has brought up yet from what I can see is that with all those LRM boats that have increased in numberes over the last month with this change there will be a large increase in friendly fire as well.

Lower arc means more backs will be hit if a LRM boat is fireing into the battle because the friendlies may get into the way between having clear LOS and the missiles actually reaching the target.

And this is something nobody will notice on PTS because of low numbers of friendlies.

Edited by Antares102, 14 January 2019 - 03:21 PM.


#58 dwwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 476 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:21 PM

View PostHammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

I'll remind everyone to get on the test server before we bash the change.


I still wonder what role they think LRMs have. DPS of all launchers is VERY high for tonnage as well as for heat.
Turning LRMs into OP direct fire weapons ( albeit with a large minimum range ) is superfluous.

Because brutal direct fire dmg is covered by ATMs and MRMs in the missile group and ALL other weapons as well.

#59 Kroete

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 931 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:27 PM

View PostShanrak, on 14 January 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

Also, lurmers will always vote polar for the lack of cover, a map no one else enjoys, again taking the fun out of the game for anyone else.

Someone suggested a while ago that LRM fire should make you target-able so lurmers can shoot back at other lurmers. At least that way they'll get a taste of their own medicine.

No, ill allways vote alpine, caustic or plexus over polar for lrms,
polar has to many options to come unseen too close and with all the trenches radarderp can shine.
The worst maps for lrms are solaris and rubbelite, the best maps for lrms are plexus, alpine, caustic and polar.

So tell me, what is the range of lrms and how will a lrm boat sitting at 900m from the front hit an enemy lrm boat sitting at 900m at the other side of the front?
Do you want to buff lrms to 2000m range?

Edited by Kroete, 14 January 2019 - 03:30 PM.


#60 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,450 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:30 PM

https://youtu.be/_x_qTW507II

This video compares the amount of time it takes to deal damage with an ER Large Laser as compared to an LRM system, with regards to lockon time and lockon angle. (This is in support of DV Devnull's original post in this thread). In the amount of time it takes to lock onto a STATIONARY target, fire, and hold that lock for the flight time of the missiles, ERLL have time to fire TWICE. The fact that they both require the same level of precision aiming needs to be fixed.

I also appreciate Dee Eight's math lesson. It seems to be something that most people are prone to forgetting.

Shanrak, I have a little experiment for you: I want you to take a 'mech, any 'mech, that comes stock as a LRM boat (Stormcrow-D, Nova Cat-B, or Catapult A1 or C1 come to mind), and try to make those 'mechs work, stock. I want you to play 10 matches and average out your damage scores. It sounds to me like you're the victim of LRMs much more often than the perpetrator of them, and need a taste of the other side. Posted Image

There are three weapon classes in this game: missile, ballistic, and energy. Missiles have their place, as do the other three. LRMs require a lot more teamwork to use effectively, and this IS a teamwork-based game, after all... The role of LRMs is indirect fire support. The intended role of other long range weapons such as AC/2's and AC/5's is direct fire support. The purpose of ALL of these weapons is to be able to shoot over and around other teammates who are on the front line, assisting them with their kill.

EDIT: how do you embed videos?

Edited by C337Skymaster, 14 January 2019 - 03:34 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users