323 replies to this topic

[Dee Eight]

Bwah Ha Ha, on 14 January 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

Just had a concern
Let's say I am running an lrm boat, I have picked a nice spot clear of my fellow teammates but one of them does decide to walk in front of me while I am DF shooting, he gets cored and dies.
Who gets banned?
Good PTS scenario to try out, as long as I don't get banned testing it.

He would have to be significantly ahead of you... IS LRM's do 0 damage from 179 or less... and clan LRMs also have a 180m minimum however they simply do less and less damage the closer you are to the receiver of the missiles than 180 meters. Essentially clan LRMs work on a reverse of how direct fire weapons do going from optimal to maximum range. If say a firestarter, with 4 pts of back torso armor steps in front of your LRM supernova at 36 meters... you'd need to hit him with an LRM80 barrage twice to core him out because at that distance, the full 80 missiles would only do 10 pts of damage total.

Sgt Grunt, on 14 January 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

You want to improve the game take OUT all consumables. All new players and players without premium accounts cannot afford 1 let alone 5 of them. Make it FAIR to all players.

My alt runs without premium time, as do most streamers... and yet we all can afford our consumables just fine. ALSO.. how would you even know what people cannot afford ? You haven't played the game since April 2018 according to Jarl's... and that was 31 games. 31 whole games in the 2 1/2 years Jarl's has been tracking players.

Edited by Dee Eight, 15 January 2019 - 02:01 AM.

[MrVaad]

Hi Chris,

I have a small request.

I've been working on tweaking/documenting cryengine variables for more than one month (using crytek doc and the oldest available lumberyard code) to improve performance and fix a few display problems.
As i'm a developper, the lumberyard code has been very helpful.

I have obtained some good results but testing/monitoring my changes is very tedious. I have to restart a level each time i change a variable and benchmarking is not easy.
I can only monitor drawcalls/vertices, various GPU/CPU usage, disk usage.

I understand that activating the console is not acceptable but could you enable a few cryengine variables for performance display/log on the public test session ? (like r_DisplayInfo or sys_enable_budgetmonitoring)

Just 1 or 2 variables from https://docs.cryengi...ing+Quick+Guide could help a lot.

Thanks.

Edited by MrVaad, 15 January 2019 - 02:33 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

Spheroid, on 14 January 2019 - 05:41 PM, said:

This seems like an admission that all of the LRM buffs of 2018 were in error (which they were).

Yep.. And still the base heat hasn't changed. Just the penalty (which is only half the issue). Further to that the velocity isn't really a problem and yet it's getting touched.

All they needed was a base heat increase of ~10-15% for C-LRM and IS LRM ~5-10%.

The heat penalty part was absolutely needed so it'll be interesting to test/see if it is even enough.

Nerfing the indirect spread even further than it has been (given Artemis is now dead tonnage). Not sure that's the right way to head.

Nor is the direct fire some 30% tighter or whatever. They are just going to essentially become homing-MRMs with better range and more efficient per tonne, with a tighter spread?

Edited by justcallme A S H, 15 January 2019 - 02:33 AM.

[BROARL]

many relevant points have been made BUT could we please have more maps instead?
how many mech packs did we have to buy so that this debate could drag out i wonder...?
THANKYOU for trying but you will never make everyone (or maybe even anyone?) happy with a nerf here or a buff there.
new maps make people happy and happy people coin and the game can continue.

[ZortPointNarf]

Start rewarding players for AMS missiles shot down with CB and the tears will stop.
Lrmageddon only happens as most players are too damage eager to packs AMS, I run it on most of my mechs and get lermed to death maybe once a month if that much.

The dramatic increase on heat for the smaller launchers seems a bit much, but I don't mind it on the bigger ones, they need some tweaking.

Agree with some of the comments above about the lock-on area being too small, the face-time required to lock onto target will mean ballistics will shred most lrm boats before they are able to return as you are not allowed to twist away to spread damage, and the increase in heat will mean they will be shutting down quite quickly.

Will test this and see how it plays, but to me it feels like, yay, now we have 2 flavours of ATM.

[dwwolf]

HammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

So many valid points but don't forget without the garbage free C3 lockon people would not be getting out of LOS locks in the first place?
Also.
What if they DO, Due diigence? Would be great correct?

Hogwash ,LRM IDF does NOT require C3 in battletech rules it just requires a spotter mech with LoS to the target, just the way it is in MWO. Range is calculated from the firing mech with an additional +1 tHt difficulty due to IDF and guess what , IDF in MWO is harder at long range ..the target has ~5.1 seconds to react, I have no way to know IF the lock is viable with certainty due to terrain.

If you want parity ....where are the to hit penalties for long range for all the other weapons ?

All C3 does in BT rules is allow shooters to use the closest range of anyone in C3Net ( and the master comp includes free TAG ).

[vonJerg]

Soooo, LRMs are gonna be weapon for every and all situations?

LRMs: You have no LOS, no problem, shoot.
LRMs: You have LOS, shoot even more.

DF: You have no LOS, no joy.
DF: You have LOS, finally, shoot.

[vonJerg]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 04:01 AM, said:

...
If you want parity ....where are the to hit penalties for long range for all the other weapons ?
...

Balistics, SRMs, MRMs and PPCs: leading your target
Lasers: keeping the beem on the target. ON THE TARGET, not in PROXIMITY of the target

[IronEleven]

vonJerg, on 15 January 2019 - 04:05 AM, said:

Balistics, SRMs, MRMs and PPCs: leading your target
Lasers: keeping the beem on the target. ON THE TARGET, not in PROXIMITY of the target

Not to mention hitting the same component because you don't have the DPS/Ammo/Heat to get away with spraying damage all over the enemy.

[Alloh]

Reading again all this, different opinions, I am more convinced that:

1. LRM with lock on must remain parabolic fire, closer to real world's Rockets than a Tomahawk. They are an area saturation fire, not a Fire'n'forget, self guided, low altitude missile.

2. It would make sense that UNLOCKED LRMs have "direct fire" trajectory. Consider that they become ""Long-range-MRM"", dumb fire. Even faster and more precise becomes OK when it's a dumb fire weapon with immediate fire, no lock-on time.

3. LRM should almost never hit LEGS, they are below the body, missiles come from above.

For direct fire, currently we can use SRM, Streak, MRM and ATM. So why a locked LRM should be the same? In dumb fire mode it would make a lot of sense, consider the "Clan's L+MRM".

----

And as side note, reinforcing that STREAKS need the previous lock-on mode, wider. Maybe add 2xLOCK-ON if the mech have both Streaks and ATM/LRM, different collors/shapes.

Or better, make the ""Lock-on reticle and time" to be relative to DISTANCE: I.e. a target at 900m needs pinpoint accuracy and longer time to lock, a target at 9m can be locked quickly and the "lock reticle" becomes larger than visible reticle.

So, a very far away target takes 4sec and requires a very small circle to be aimed at target. While a very close target requires 2sec and has a much wider circle to be aimed.

[dwwolf]

50 50, on 14 January 2019 - 10:53 PM, said:

Remember when there was the push for a more elaborate information warfare system with the information sharing ranges and a few other things?
That's slipped under the radar now.....

Hogwash argument to begin with. BT board LRM only needs a spotter mech to have LoS. And indirect fire is harder than direct fire. No way to guarantee the target is valid but to fire and longer ranges generally = more time for target act.

[DAEDALOS513]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 05:46 AM, said:

Hogwash argument to begin with. BT board LRM only needs a spotter mech to have LoS. And indirect fire is harder than direct fire. No way to guarantee the target is valid but to fire and longer ranges generally = more time for target act.

As it should be

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 January 2019 - 05:58 AM.

[dwwolf]

vonJerg, on 15 January 2019 - 04:05 AM, said:

Balistics, SRMs, MRMs and PPCs: leading your target
Lasers: keeping the beem on the target. ON THE TARGET, not in PROXIMITY of the target

And the drawbacks for LRM are:
We NEVER get to target specific locations on a mech.
We do not get to torso twist to spread damage due to lockons.
We need to wait b4 a lockon happens to even be able to shoot.
Long range fire = 5second waiting period, at minimum. Actual trajectory takes longer, during which target can break lock or move into cover.
We will waste damage damage due to spread.
And we have 2 other hard counters as well. ECM and AMS.
IDF adds another uncertainty : is the target hittable at all ?

I will be laughing all the way to topscore with these changes. Direct fire will be OP as hell if the trajectory change isnt conductive to shooting team mates in the back. We will suck at trading damage directly...but as a non obvious shooter LMAO.
The other change I see happening is more self carried NARC Launchers leading to more cries about not being able to hide.

Effective spread is going to be 49% in direct LoF + Artemis/NARC......

Edited by dwwolf, 15 January 2019 - 07:07 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

dwwolf, on 15 January 2019 - 06:21 AM, said:

And the drawbacks for LRM are:
We NEVER get to target specific locations on a mech.
We do not get to torso twist to spread damage due to lockons.
We need to wait b4 a lockon happens to even be able to shoot.
Long range fire = 5second waiting period, at minimum. Actual trajectory takes longer, during which target can break lock or move into cover.
We will waste damage damage due to spread.
And we have 2 other hard counters as well. ECM and AMS.
IDF adds another factor

As it should be.. what's your point?
Also, I wouldn't call AMS a hard counter in the least.. when almost half the team needs to carry AMS to negate or significantly diffuse the dmg potential of just ONE lurm boat, the balance scales are off.

Instead of improving your gameplay with real weapons, you want to take the easy route and are begging PGI to design a weapon around your relatively lower experience level. A weapon system that will compensate for your lack of aiming/fighting skills. What's truly lacking here, at its core, is your motivation to become a better player. Do you not see how silly your arguments are?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 15 January 2019 - 06:34 AM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

For those that are complaining about accidentally shooting teammates in the back....
If your directly behind your teammate, and you dont have LOS, it should still trigger the indirect fire stats. JS.

Well see in testing. But if your behind a teammate you don't have LOS. >.<

[Bwah Ha Ha]

Dee Eight, on 15 January 2019 - 01:58 AM, said:

He would have to be significantly ahead of you... IS LRM's do 0 damage from 179 or less... and clan LRMs also have a 180m minimum however they simply do less and less damage the closer you are to the receiver of the missiles than 180 meters. Essentially clan LRMs work on a reverse of how direct fire weapons do going from optimal to maximum range. If say a firestarter, with 4 pts of back torso armor steps in front of your LRM supernova at 36 meters... you'd need to hit him with an LRM80 barrage twice to core him out because at that distance, the full 80 missiles would only do 10 pts of damage total.

Good point I didn't do my math even though I was thinking primarily clan lrms.
So if PGI is pushing DF will we get to see a lowered arming range for lrms and full damage output?

[Todd Marshall]

I've made an experiment, running near exclusively lurms, on an alt account. The account is now rated in the top 0,4% percentile of all players, via the Jarl's list. The experiment started in Tier 2. I should not be able to do this.
For those willing to check for proof, the account's name is Peter Halcyon.
Lurms aren't hard to play, if anything the lock on enabled me to spend more time reading the battlegrid, anticipating enemy movement and to act accordingly. The DPS is out of this world. If targets are under ECM/AMS shoot a different target.
If people underrun your minimum range you've done it wrong, or the game is near a loss anyways.

...0,4 percentile...
Granted, I used only C-LRMS, but seriosly.
Stop crying for buffs to an outrageously overpowered weapons system.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

I don't wanna sound salty, but..

is this PTS gonna be like the last ones, then? a number of people give feedback in a thread, most come to consensus where to go from here, and then PGI comes along and says
'happy that you all are in agreement, but we do something -entirely- different now, so thx for all the fish'?

also a 4man environment is -not- the best to test a weapon like lurms. give us 12' teams and some incentive for the rest of folks to join us on the pts, pls;
*half serious*: it takes 8+ bodies to cover for the backfield lurmers. we can test the direct fire all we like, but you're not gonna see&test leeching supporting from the back working indirect fire unless we go full 12.

[DAEDALOS513]

Todd Marshall, on 15 January 2019 - 06:45 AM, said:

I've made an experiment, running near exclusively lurms, on an alt account. The account is now rated in the top 0,4% percentile of all players, via the Jarl's list. The experiment started in Tier 2. I should not be able to do this.
For those willing to check for proof, the account's name is Peter Halcyon.
Lurms aren't hard to play, if anything the lock on enabled me to spend more time reading the battlegrid, anticipating enemy movement and to act accordingly. The DPS is out of this world. If targets are under ECM/AMS shoot a different target.
If people underrun your minimum range you've done it wrong, or the game is near a loss anyways.

...0,4 percentile...
Granted, I used only C-LRMS, but seriosly.
Stop crying for buffs to an outrageously overpowered weapons system.

Good points Todd.. also, this is another reason why I don't pay significant attention to lists like Jarl's..

[Peter Halcyon]

DAEDALOS513, on 15 January 2019 - 07:00 AM, said:

Good points Todd.. also, this is another reason why I don't pay significant attention to lists like Jarl's..

Yea. The matchscore system is easy to game.