14 replies to this topic

[50 50]

Only went into the testing ground to get a bit of a feel for the weapons.
For my trial run I was using a Maddog A with 6x LRM5s so I could waddle back and forth using the weapons on chain fire.

It's quite dynamic and looks like it's working quite well.
Even small obstructions will have the launcher change to the higher arc so popping in and out from behind cover or crossing past an obstruction alters the flight path nicely.
If the launcher has already begun it's firing cycle it will use the trajectory it had at the time it commenced. It feels like there might be a brief moment just before firing where this is determined but this seems reasonable.

Mechs do block line of site. (Trees block line of site)
So the friendly fire risk should not be a concern.
There will be instances where you have fired a volley and someone then moves into line of sight but that is no different to any other weapon.

[50 50]

Quick little vid.

[50 50]

Damage spread for direct fire vs indirect is noticeable.
Tried a Supernova with 4x LRM20s with Artemis against an Awesome on the Canyon Valley map in the testing grounds.
From approximately 550 meters from a target it took 5 full volleys using indirect fire, 4 using direct fire and 3 using TAG.

[50 50]

Maybe a few extra tweaks with the heat, but the change to the trajectory and the improved accuracy with direct fire felt good.

I am going ask, should LRMs use a lock on?
The direct fire option feels like it might benefit from being able to direct the missiles to the cross hair and it would serve more of an area saturation purpose when fired indirectly.

[LordNothing]

50 50, on 16 January 2019 - 08:13 PM, said:

Damage spread for direct fire vs indirect is noticeable.
Tried a Supernova with 4x LRM20s with Artemis against an Awesome on the Canyon Valley map in the testing grounds.
From approximately 550 meters from a target it took 5 full volleys using indirect fire, 4 using direct fire and 3 using TAG.

i wasnt aware tag reduced spread, is that a new feature or was it always like that? granted id rather have missile steering but thats just me.

[dwwolf]

TAG increases tracking.

[D V Devnull]

Okay, 50 50, I've seen your video. While it does potentially answer my concern about hitting Friendly Mechs, it does not cover an issue that strikes me, and probably only someone at PGI can work out an answer to this... And by the way, before I get to any further thoughts, I should apologize for how salty they sound. I'm typing them while a bit frustrated due to several things, and I don't mean to attack you with any of that upset which I'm feeling.

What if you've established the Lock yourself and put effort into Target Decay? Why should someone who got the Lock-On all by their self have to suffer any hit to Missile Spread when there's a brief obstruction? That's just slapping the LRM User in the face and telling them their effort wasn't worth it because they didn't stay exposed forever, even though doing so is auto-death long before being able to use all the ammo they probably brought. They don't get the ability to twist and shield themselves in Live Server Combat, which makes their Center Torso way too easy to be blown out! As a sad opposite, people with PPC/Gauss/AC/LBX can all Hit-and-Run with their shots, able to fire and more-or-less ensure a devastating hit while being able to twist their Mech as well as escape out of view again. PGI should thoroughly NOT be making the Missile Spread even worse when you don't have Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target. I can understand an enjoyable Buff versus the Live Server Baseline for having Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight. But, I most certainly can not understand any penalizing of those who got their own Lock-On (and/or for that matter people who are not in the best of health and therefore can only work well as a semi-hidden Support Pilot, as I happen to know some in Real Life) for not having that Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target.

If PGI is trying to kill the game for all but the most powerful players (and their Competitive Players) who are in perfect health, then this will be an utterly epic step in doing so. They're definitely ruining/unfunning/wrecking (in general, "making unenjoyable") the game for any newbies, people with slow computers, and/or those who are medically unstable. It's like PGI simply does not want the giant Player Base that they claim to have desired for all this time.

~Mr. D. V. "Now that I've ranted a bit, my head shall now flop on a desk... [THUMP!] ..." Devnull

[50 50]

LordNothing, on 16 January 2019 - 10:33 PM, said:

i wasnt aware tag reduced spread, is that a new feature or was it always like that? granted id rather have missile steering but thats just me.

I'm not a heavy LRM user but whenever I've mucked about in the testing grounds with them I've thought that the LRMs did focus more on the center torso when using TAG. Haven't noticed the same behaviour with NARC but it's also something that I'd have to go back onto the live server and test properly unless anyone else can confirm it.

dwwolf, on 17 January 2019 - 02:59 AM, said:

TAG increases tracking.

... and also helps increase the tracking/lock on speed.

D V Devnull, on 17 January 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

Okay, 50 50, I've seen your video. While it does potentially answer my concern about hitting Friendly Mechs, it does not cover an issue that strikes me, and probably only someone at PGI can work out an answer to this... And by the way, before I get to any further thoughts, I should apologize for how salty they sound. I'm typing them while a bit frustrated due to several things, and I don't mean to attack you with any of that upset which I'm feeling.

What if you've established the Lock yourself and put effort into Target Decay? Why should someone who got the Lock-On all by their self have to suffer any hit to Missile Spread when there's a brief obstruction? That's just slapping the LRM User in the face and telling them their effort wasn't worth it because they didn't stay exposed forever, even though doing so is auto-death long before being able to use all the ammo they probably brought. They don't get the ability to twist and shield themselves in Live Server Combat, which makes their Center Torso way too easy to be blown out! As a sad opposite, people with PPC/Gauss/AC/LBX can all Hit-and-Run with their shots, able to fire and more-or-less ensure a devastating hit while being able to twist their Mech as well as escape out of view again. PGI should thoroughly NOT be making the Missile Spread even worse when you don't have Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target. I can understand an enjoyable Buff versus the Live Server Baseline for having Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight. But, I most certainly can not understand any penalizing of those who got their own Lock-On (and/or for that matter people who are not in the best of health and therefore can only work well as a semi-hidden Support Pilot, as I happen to know some in Real Life) for not having that Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target.

If PGI is trying to kill the game for all but the most powerful players (and their Competitive Players) who are in perfect health, then this will be an utterly epic step in doing so. They're definitely ruining/unfunning/wrecking (in general, "making unenjoyable") the game for any newbies, people with slow computers, and/or those who are medically unstable. It's like PGI simply does not want the giant Player Base that they claim to have desired for all this time.

~Mr. D. V. "Now that I've ranted a bit, my head shall now flop on a desk... [THUMP!] ..." Devnull

I don't know if I'd see it that way, or that the weapons felt like they always have when used with indirect fire and I got some advantages when I did have line of sight. The weapon felt a bit more 'intelligent' in the way it dynamically altered the flight path depending on any obstacles that got in the way and you got bonuses when you had LOS more than you got penalized for not having it.

In terms of using them in the indirect support role, it's still going to work well.
If we use the Supernova example where it took 5 indirect volleys to finish off the Awesome, 4 when in LOS and 3 with TAG we might be able to assume that it would take 4 volleys with indirect fire if you have a spotter with TAG.
I'd need some help testing that.

There are two sides to the flight path changes. On offense if you are moving with the team and you have team mates moving back and forth in front of you, you will get some shots in direct fire and others that will arc over allowing you to maintain fire on a target better than any other weapon in the game.

Defensively, if you find yourself confronted by enemy mechs, the direct fire benefits will give you a bit more of a fighting chance.

Either way, the target decay benefits should still play their part in keeping those locks a little longer if you or the target move behind an obstruction so the peek and shoot tactic in theory should just work a little better in that while establishing the lock you can get in a few shots in LOS and then continue firing when you move out of LOS.

In my opinion the changes with the flight path felt good.

As I said, I've only had a go in the testing grounds so it's not been against a live target or in a match environment which will always play out differently.
If anyone would like to hook up and do a few matches in the private lobby and run through some test I'd be happy to join in.
the other thing that would be good to look at is how well the LRMs synergize with other weapons in LOS.

[Kaeb Odellas]

50 50, on 16 January 2019 - 08:13 PM, said:

Damage spread for direct fire vs indirect is noticeable.
Tried a Supernova with 4x LRM20s with Artemis against an Awesome on the Canyon Valley map in the testing grounds.
From approximately 550 meters from a target it took 5 full volleys using indirect fire, 4 using direct fire and 3 using TAG.

This is kind of a bad test because of the Artemis. Artemis will have a greater effect on efficiency by decreasing spread in direct fire mode than the flight path, as Artemis does not affect indirect fire. You need to test with standard LRMs to see true effect of the flight path.

[D V Devnull]

50 50, on 17 January 2019 - 05:09 PM, said:

<<<snip to avoid long quote>>>

Either way, the target decay benefits should still play their part in keeping those locks a little longer if you or the target move behind an obstruction so the peek and shoot tactic in theory should just work a little better in that while establishing the lock you can get in a few shots in LOS and then continue firing when you move out of LOS.

<<<snip to avoid long quote>>>

I went over to the Testing Grounds on the PTS and checked this stuff too. It goes into Wide-Spread Indirect the moment that one doesn't have Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on the Enemy Mech. What I'm questioning is why the Missile Spread should even widen/increase/worsen when the Lock is personally created and owned by the LRM-firing Mech. Frankly, I think that's the one uncovered handling case in the matter, because if you're getting your own Lock, then you should still have some benefit on Missile Spread even when you're having to partially utilize cover to defend that Center Torso which you're already not allowed to protect while Tracking. I don't think that PGI has really understood the Effort Value involved in getting your own Lock-On out there on the battlefields.

And again... Sure, if you're following another person's Lock, that's not your own and maybe the spread should not be the best. But making it worse than the Current Live Server State is just going too far on the Nerf Bat. I'm all for Buffs for one's effort, provided that they don't have self-failing caveats. But shoving the Nerf so far and hard on the other end that it hurts people with certain problems I've mentioned earlier (Slow Computer, Medically Unstable, or just a Plain Newbie) is just not reasonable. For one serious example (and pardon the run-on here), it really doesn't help to try to introduce someone to MWO, and then have them complain and leave again because the physical nerve damage in their Real Life body (or some other issue that makes their physical movements not smooth) makes it so they can't even use anything but LRMs, and those LRMs can't even do any damage at all because that person isn't able to handle exposing their Mech to the Enemy Team for more than 2 seconds at a time in random places on the battlefields. But again, PGI is failing to think about accessibility to MWO in general to the masses who don't have their body in the best of health.

As for Indirect with Spotter TAG (and NARC) Assist, that would be interesting to test out and see how it works. In advance however, I very much fear that PGI has also not taken into account the Effort Value which TAG (and NARC) Assistance happen to constitute, and how it can end up sacrificing Teammates unnecessarily. This will likely mean that the Missile Spread gets too wide even though a Teammate is trying to help another, which means that the TAG (and NARC) are being devalued in both Effort Value and Functionality as it should have been applied. Dismally, we live in an era where people don't understand strategic weaponry and equipment, along with the actual ability it should have versus what's being sacrificed in trade to have it work. So ultimately, I very much fear MWO is going to end up being wrecked by those who are mentally only capable of thinking in terms of Direct Line-Of-Sight weaponry and tactics, and whine about anything that could come at them from a non-visible location. That will basically take the MechWarrior/BattleTech thought and feel out of this game, ruining it for all but the PUBG/CoD/TitanFall/Halo/Destiny/etc. bunch who are all stuck on that "If I can't see you, you should never be able to hit me." sickening mentality that they enjoy too much of shoving down other's throats. It feels like nobody out there really values or enjoys the Surprise Attack Tactics that made so many things possible or even fun in games anymore.

~Mr. D. V. "I must be a relic from an 'Era Of Old Games' where Tactics and Strategy actually have meant something!" Devnull

[50 50]

How would the game determine that you go your own lock though?
At the moment it doesn't care one way or the other.
Some sort of conditional rule that asks:
"Did you have line of sight when you got this lock"
"If yes, then reduce missile spread."

That might encourage people to move forward to attain the locks but it then also encourages retreating out of sight to take advantage of it which may not be possible.
I am probably viewing this from the other direction and looking at it as: Great, I can use the LRMs indirectly as I move around and as soon as the mech I'm tracking gets into LOS I can hit them harder.... provided I can hold the lock.

I do query the use of needing a lock on mechanic with the missiles along with how it is being used as an indirect weapon and would ask if perhaps LRMs would find purpose as an AoE effect when used indirectly potentially damaging multiple mechs at once?

I can't speak for the players that might have various disabilities and would like to enjoy the game as even holding the locks with the lower tolerances of that mechanic now I expect would be difficult.
Would using the LRMs in an indirect area denial role instead of reduced effectiveness against a single mech not only assist those players but give a team new tactical options that would be valued?

[D V Devnull]

50 50, on 21 January 2019 - 12:44 AM, said:

<<<snip for length>>>

Would using the LRMs in an indirect area denial role instead of reduced effectiveness against a single mech not only assist those players but give a team new tactical options that would be valued?

I can see where it could be helpful. However, those options need to be settings that can be toggled, so the LRM user can switch Firing Modes to accommodate both their self and their Team. (If there's one thing I've learned about LRM users, it's that they don't take well to having their combat style dictated to them as being something unequal to everyone else!) Unfortunately, that's one thing which happens to seemingly be beyond PGI's current ability, given the Game Engine (in this case, a modified "CryEngine v3") which MWO is being run upon.

I might as well bring this up for reference, but I actually have listened to people with these kind of medical issues rant at me because they want to be able to help their team in a game, but still have the weaponry that they're limited to using at any reasonable level be able to kill a single Mech that they're focusing upon. Frankly, I can not blame them for feeling this way, given how much more easily that virtually any-and-every-other weapon can kill at an insane rate. They're forced to keep the Mech aimed a certain way, creating a vulnerability which none of their Team wants, and there has to be a way to keep all that Missile Ammo from being wasted by the Enemy Team before it can be used against them. There is no reason at all to slap disabled people in the face, causing them to leave the game, and BattleTech Lore even gives precedence to having disabled people as Pilots in some Mechs. Plus, focused out-of-view strikes have always been a valid military strategy for many hundreds (if not thousands, which would be the more likely case) of years, and I find no fault with the crowd who enjoys such surprise attacks. (Heck, I even enjoy those moments when I can outwit them! It's a learning experience everyone needs, no matter how much they would rather say otherwise.) That was supposed to be the reason behind Focused Indirect Fire in MWO coming from an out-of-view location, just like how it would come in Real Life Wars that have happened, both past and present.

I'm gonna scoot again, but I think we can agree how sad it is that there are people out there of an exclusionist nature who have no respect for the disabled and older-aged. Worse is how they want to keep the old and disabled out of games, put them to pasture, and basically kick them out of living by making them feel dead and useless. Those exclusionists anger me, as there is so much still to those old and disabled people's lives, and so much to be shared in and given to, but they want to take it all away from anyone interested. On top of it, I've been getting a personal taste in how the old and disabled feel, as I've been finding my own hands less than near-perfectly stable as of late. It's a feeling that has left me frustrated sometimes, as well. Unfortunately, if these exclusionists -- and those at PGI who don't understand -- have their way, then LRMs will be wrongfully degraded into a 'noob trap' that nobody much can (or would/will) use, and those who needed them to work will be forced to give up on MWO and find somewhere else to be. (By that point, MWO will have been turned into a hell where only the fastest person can ever win.) Well, that's if such a thing even exists.

~Mr. D. V. "feeling MWO's future to be unstable, just because one significant piece could end up perma-mangled" Devnull





(p.s.: If my post feels at all like you're getting your ears torn off by it, I severely apologize. Simply put, none of that is aimed at you in any way. This whole mess with changing LRM Mechanics has me a little wound-up inside, and for many reasons with their many angles.)

[50 50]

Having alternate fire modes for a weapon would be along the lines of why ammo switching is not possible.
The alternative would be to simply add in a new suite of weapon systems that use the existing hard points but are considered 'artillery' in their design and purpose.

Edited by 50 50, 21 January 2019 - 08:10 PM.

[50 50]

Kaeb Odellas, on 17 January 2019 - 11:52 PM, said:

This is kind of a bad test because of the Artemis. Artemis will have a greater effect on efficiency by decreasing spread in direct fire mode than the flight path, as Artemis does not affect indirect fire. You need to test with standard LRMs to see true effect of the flight path.

Meant to comment on this earlier sorry.
Had a quick go at the time without Artemis on the launchers and got the same result with indirect fire and it took 5 volleys to destroy the Awesome.
I didn't pursue it or try to redo the test at the time as I recall there being an issue with artemis at the moment and many players saying that it's not worth taking for the extra tonnage.

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

D V Devnull, on 17 January 2019 - 11:18 AM, said:

Okay, 50 50, I've seen your video. While it does potentially answer my concern about hitting Friendly Mechs, it does not cover an issue that strikes me, and probably only someone at PGI can work out an answer to this... And by the way, before I get to any further thoughts, I should apologize for how salty they sound. I'm typing them while a bit frustrated due to several things, and I don't mean to attack you with any of that upset which I'm feeling.

What if you've established the Lock yourself and put effort into Target Decay? Why should someone who got the Lock-On all by their self have to suffer any hit to Missile Spread when there's a brief obstruction? That's just slapping the LRM User in the face and telling them their effort wasn't worth it because they didn't stay exposed forever, even though doing so is auto-death long before being able to use all the ammo they probably brought. They don't get the ability to twist and shield themselves in Live Server Combat, which makes their Center Torso way too easy to be blown out! As a sad opposite, people with PPC/Gauss/AC/LBX can all Hit-and-Run with their shots, able to fire and more-or-less ensure a devastating hit while being able to twist their Mech as well as escape out of view again. PGI should thoroughly NOT be making the Missile Spread even worse when you don't have Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target. I can understand an enjoyable Buff versus the Live Server Baseline for having Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight. But, I most certainly can not understand any penalizing of those who got their own Lock-On (and/or for that matter people who are not in the best of health and therefore can only work well as a semi-hidden Support Pilot, as I happen to know some in Real Life) for not having that Perfect Direct Line-Of-Sight on an Enemy Target.

If PGI is trying to kill the game for all but the most powerful players (and their Competitive Players) who are in perfect health, then this will be an utterly epic step in doing so. They're definitely ruining/unfunning/wrecking (in general, "making unenjoyable") the game for any newbies, people with slow computers, and/or those who are medically unstable. It's like PGI simply does not want the giant Player Base that they claim to have desired for all this time.

~Mr. D. V. "Now that I've ranted a bit, my head shall now flop on a desk... [THUMP!] ..." Devnull

PGI has 2 choices
1: leaving everything as it was and butt hurting the long time players that buy every mech pack.
2: Putting the long time players into their desired comfort zone and monitor if the loss of income from LRM players
is higher then 1: > if so >> patch the game to achieve 1: