323 replies to this topic

[Xeno Phalcon]

How will this change mechs that already have launchers that behave differently based on distance to target? My Archers shoulder launchers for example have a shallow arc when fired at targets under like, 400 meters but outside of that shoots them at a very steep angle. (VERY handy for firing over friendlies and low hills)

[Creepus]

Honestly i am ok with LRM rework but i think a new direct fire should be a little bit higher, like 10-15% more higher.
Still i have some questions about spreading. I dont want LRMs be able to destroy your legs or torsos like it does in current version when all lrms goes right into one specific location of your mech.

And one more important note. PLS for GOD sake nerf the machine guns already. I stopped playing on assault mechs because those little ba$tard$ kill you in 5 seconds every second game.

Edited by Creepus, 14 January 2019 - 12:43 PM.

[HammerMaster]

D 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.



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

I have concerns also but let's ACTUALLY use the test server and GIVE THE MAN FEEDBACK based off of test server use rather than SPECULATION!
This is THE most important test yet!

[Anton Fetladral]

I don't like the arc changes. The idea seems a little gimmicky and will probably be prone to buggy behavior in practice. I think LRMs should just have increased heat, maybe a little less velocity (which you guys have done, which is great). More idiosyncratic behavior for weapons systems will make it even more confusing for new players. ATMs already have the shallow arc, LRMs are different because they have a high arc and no other weapon system has that. They do need to be a little easier to avoid and harder to spam, which can be accomplished by + heat and - velocity without the weird arc behavior.

[HammerMaster]

Anton Fetladral, on 14 January 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

I don't like the arc changes. The idea seems a little gimmicky and will probably be prone to buggy behavior in practice. I think LRMs should just have increased heat, maybe a little less velocity (which you guys have done, which is great). More idiosyncratic behavior for weapons systems will make it even more confusing for new players. ATMs already have the shallow arc, LRMs are different because they have a high arc and no other weapon system has that. They do need to be a little easier to avoid and harder to spam, which can be accomplished by + heat and - velocity without the weird arc behavior.

Do you even BattleTech?
Check source material.

[PAQUERA]

Bravo! i like it!!

nice to see that u are working in MWO

[denAirwalkerrr]

#THNXCHRIS now without sarcasm?

[Kuaron]

I like the new system from what I’m reading. Have been waiting for it for some time, didn’t expect to see these changes now.

[dwwolf]

Can we determine what the role of LRMs are first ?
And then decide how we/you want to fill that role ?

Because I can tell you right now...it is NOT direct LOS damage application. The spread of the missiles means damage application is mediocre even with Artemis/TAG/NARC.

Furthermore direct damage application sucks as the LRM role, we have a Bursty weapon with tons of spread that requires face time due to lock requirements. Lock requirements both in Guiding the salvo and in requiring a lock to Actually FIRE the weapon.

Furthermore the shallows arcs are actually going to kill direct fire LRM play. We cannot succesfully trade damage vs faster weapons that apply their damage in a more concentrated fashion, We have spread, longer flight time, long reload time for the big launchers, and face time b4 we can fire and required face time after we fire.
Shallow arcs = hitting team mates in the back. We might as well load lasers, AC or Gauss and drop in a direct fire mech if we cannot shoot over team mates ( which is already troublesome after the LOCK ON ARC was made smaller ).


LRM =/ ATM.
Stop trying to pigeonhole them in the same role.

IF LRMs are an OP problem ( and contrary to popular myth I never have experienced them as such, if I get hammered by LRMs I made mistakes ) in the indirect fire role then soft fix it by making the sustained DPS lower, the increased heat for multiple launchers might be a start there.

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 12:50 PM, said:

Do you even BattleTech?
Check source material.

What is your point ?

[banana peel]

So far doesnt look like the indirect fire nerf is sufficient, Chris. Clan LRMs are a bigger problem today, and what they practically get is -15 m/s and that is all. Not nearly enough to incentivize people to engage and put themselves into danger.

Bigger indirect lock-on time, much bigger indirect spread and, if possible, less tracking ability from indirect fire - and the gameplay can change. But with those values above - not a chance.

[Hadesuwa]

Looks like ATM kind of rework. I like this direction far better than your usual ways with tweaks.
Hope it will play out well in the end.

[Dee Eight]

Alloh, 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.

Well I happened to like the new behavior. It was more correct to the battletech rules, previous mechwarrior games, and the REAL world as to how guided rockets/missiles actually work.

Quote

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!

THe only thing broke with streaks is the reduction in lock area of the targeting reticle but that applied to all gulded missile as well. They shrunk the area to nerf LRM users forgetting it would screw over ATM and SSRM users also. But I still do very well killing people with them every day, especially lights with ECM.

[dwwolf]

Hadesuwa, on 14 January 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Looks like ATM kind of rework. I like this direction far better than your usual ways with tweaks.
Hope it will play out well in the end.

What is the point of LRMs if they are ATMs ?
Atleast ATMs have godly damage if you hit with them.

In my book LRMs trade versatilty in appyling damage ( as in different targets/ targets out of direct LoF ) for poorer damage application and efficiency combined with lock on requirements. If LRMs gain a shallow arc in LOS mode we might as well load ATMs or DF weapons. Cant shoot over team = needs to be in front = needs to face time with a burst weapon with required locks = even more disadvantage vs DF.

Trajectory needs to be a toggle state for LRMs.

Edited by dwwolf, 14 January 2019 - 01:19 PM.

[D V Devnull]

Catching up...

---

Creepus, on 14 January 2019 - 12:42 PM, said:

Honestly i am ok with LRM rework but i think a new direct fire should be a little bit higher, like 10-15% more higher.
Still i have some questions about spreading. I dont want LRMs be able to destroy your legs or torsos like it does in current version when all lrms goes right into one specific location of your mech.

And one more important note. PLS for GOD sake nerf the machine guns already. I stopped playing on assault mechs because those little ba$tard$ kill you in 5 seconds every second game.

I'll second on the Machine Guns versus the back of an Assault Mech. Can't pitch down enough to battle against them, even with Maxed Torso Pitch Skills. Heck, maybe we just need better Assault Mobility instead, in order to overcome the issue with Machine Guns?

As for the LRMs... What are you talking about them hitting Torso Components so easily? I mean sure, the Leg Components are something I definitely noticed with the Spread getting wider, but the Torsos have been taking much less damage than they used to. And they all definitely do NOT go into just one Component now, unlike about two years ago where they could cause a Competitive Level Pilot to have an actual run for their (C-Bills) and a New Pilot could actually have a chance against them.

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 12:42 PM, said:

I have concerns also but let's ACTUALLY use the test server and GIVE THE MAN FEEDBACK based off of test server use rather than SPECULATION!
This is THE most important test yet!

I was not disputing giving actual feedback via the PTS itself in any way. You did note my saying I would drop in and run some matches, right? It sure doesn't seem like you saw that!

Anton Fetladral, on 14 January 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

I don't like the arc changes. The idea seems a little gimmicky and will probably be prone to buggy behavior in practice. I think LRMs should just have increased heat, maybe a little less velocity (which you guys have done, which is great). More idiosyncratic behavior for weapons systems will make it even more confusing for new players. ATMs already have the shallow arc, LRMs are different because they have a high arc and no other weapon system has that. They do need to be a little easier to avoid and harder to spam, which can be accomplished by + heat and - velocity without the weird arc behavior.

Plus those bloody LRMs still need to be better able to acquire and maintain a lock, even when following somebody else's visual. Sure, speed it up more if we have Direct Sight. But the overly-shrunken Locking Angle and extremely-high Delay Time that LRMs have for a Lock-On right now is just too narrow and long, particularly for those who are already having severe issues with their Real Life Arms/Hands. MWO should not be incompatible with people whose Real Life Body happens to be in less-than-perfect shape, or it simply kills growing the Player Base to any useful size.

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 12:50 PM, said:

Do you even BattleTech?
Check source material.

Not trying to jump you, but not everyone can afford the Physical References. Is there any chance you could provide some screenshots of the Physical Reference, or perhaps provide some links to a proper online reference that's better than Sarna.net's?

---

...and now I'm outta here again. So much to do, so little time!


~D. V. "can already see there will be a lot to be said with this PTS run" Devnull

[HammerMaster]

dwwolf, on 14 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

What is the point of LRMs if they are ATMs ?
Atleast ATMs have godly damage if you hit with them.

In my book LRMs trade versatilty in appyling damage ( as in different targets/ targets out of direct LoF ) for poorer damage application combined with lock on requirements. If LRMs gain a shallow arc in LOS mode we might as well load ATMs or DF weapons. Cant shoot over team = needs to be in front = needs to face time with a burst weapon = even more disadvantage vs DF.

Trajectory needs to be a toggle state for LRMs.

While toggle would be better.
They're not capable of switching a la LB-X. So.
I wish.

DevNull!
I'm catching up too!
The forums are ablaze!
On phone. Links are problematic with these giant flat thumbs I have.

[Dee Eight]

@Chris Lowrey

Can we get a testing of the target reticle lock area being increased... a few patches ago when it was nerfed...did whoever of PGI wrote the explanation skip the week that "area of a circle" was taught in school ? Halving the radius of a circle does not halve the area. Math refresher... area of a circle is Pi R squared. So let's keep the decimals down by only using pi to 4 decimals.. which means 3.1415 times the radius squared. If the radius is 2... then the area becomes 12.566. If the radius is 1... then the area becomes 3.1415 which ironically divides into 12.566 exactly 4 times... so... half the radius of the circle...75% reduction in the area of the circle... and thus...you nerfed the area we had to achieve a lock with by 75% not by 50%.


From the august patch notes....

"
Weapon Lock changes

• Weapon lock assistance angle tightened by ~50%

</p>

Design notes: With the recently boosted LRM stats, we want to take a second look at the weapon lock assistance angle and tighten the system up. This is not only to make it more challenging to lock on with LRM's but with all lock on type weapons including ATMs and Streak Missiles, which we feel had previously been set a bit too generously to the detriment of lighter, faster 'Mechs for all systems linked to the weapon lock on system. "

Edited by Dee Eight, 14 January 2019 - 01:24 PM.

[Kroete]

Hadesuwa, on 14 January 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Looks like ATM kind of rework.

Going for the picture, the arc is too low. If i want to fire direct but behind my teammates,
i cant do it (thanks for the bending nerfs again) without hitting their backs.

So i can use atms for the same direct trajectory or i need to stay behind some rock to fire indirect.

[BARegulator]

I would also like to see a little wider angle for weapons lock. However, with that being said I look forward to the changes as they do seem to be a step in the right direction.

Thanks

[Hadesuwa]

dwwolf, on 14 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

What is the point of LRMs if they are ATMs ?
Atleast ATMs have godly damage if you hit with them.

Actually I'd like to know this as well. Nonetheless it doesn't change the fact that PGI by the very least of it are trying some other tools in their endless circle nerfs and buffs which is a nice change of pace if you ask.

dwwolf, on 14 January 2019 - 01:17 PM, said:

Trajectory needs to be a toggle state for LRMs.

Agree on this one as well.

[Vellron2005]

Chris Lowrey, on 14 January 2019 - 12:20 PM, said:

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

First off.. Know that I am a person that plays mostly LRM boats, and have trained other top-notch LRM users.. so, taking that into account..

1) You DO realize that the only effective way for a LRM boat to break through the umbrella of AMS or kill an Irondome mech (3AMS+ECM) is to assail it with a big alpha of LRMs? (50+ minimum) This method already makes us take override damage after 2 alphas..

The heat penalty is a direct mega-nerf to that.

So this will make it ALOT harder for us to save ourselves against AMS and actively contribute to the team.

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.

LRMing is hard enough as it is, getting locks without having a dedicated NARC buddy is a pain right now, so your idea of nerfing large launchers, coupled with the amount of AMS floating around on the battlefield, will leave Lurmers with nowhere to go - but to other games. There are few of us as it is already..

So the proposed changes, as presented, don't feel at all like the buff we lurmers have been waiting for (I know I speak for at least a few others that I play with regularly), but rather, it feels like a nerfbat to the face, and catering to those who would rather have us at the front, using ATMs.

Conclusion - Please, ditch the nerfs. The ONLY thing that is good from what you presented is the trajectory when in LOS. Ditch everything else.

Edited by Vellron2005, 14 January 2019 - 01:43 PM.