2 replies to this topic

[Bad Pun]

So, as the topic suggests, this is where my thoughts lay on the PTS. First, the operative wording of the overview that I'm working by:

InnerSphereNews, on 14 January 2019 - 11:46 AM, said:

The focus of this test will be on an alteration in behavior to LRMs that will change the way that LRMs operate based on if the firer has direct line of sight to the target or not. The core intent behind this change is to move away from weapon tuning that must be balanced to account for both direct and indirect fire collectively. And instead, shift some of the weapons potency away from its indirect fire capabilities while better rewarding its use in more direct fire scenarios.



The key points of this PTS session will be:

• New LRM behavior that will see a shallower angle of attack and boosted performance while firing on targets within direct LOS
  
• Reductions to baseline LRM attributes

While we will be reducing a number of LRM weapon attributes, the net effect of these changes have been explicitly tuned to produce the following results:

• Net Buffs to LRM performance in direct fire situations
  
• Nerfs to LRM performance in indirect fire situations

...For these initial values, we went with values that would result in net buffs in direct fire situations and nerfs in indirect fire. We want to stress again that these values are explicitly for testing purposes, and may change upon final release. We will be reviewing both data acquired through the PTS and player feedback within the PTS forums.

This is what stood out to me. I take this as LoS is supposed to be good, Indirect bad, emphasize direct fire and especially the "Net Buffs to LRM performance in direct fire situations".

Let's establish a baseline. Here's my test on the Live Client:
https://youtu.be/o861EfJBKPw

Not bad. It's a rather weak weapon on its lonesome, but that's nothing new. I finished in 6:25 with enough ammo left over to maybe net a ninth kill despite some derp. I'll take it for setting the bar.

Next I tested some direct action in the PTS. Same mech, same loadout, same course:
https://youtu.be/Blbeb_caFUc

Oh heck! That's not good. Seven minutes and I run out of ammo with only six kills! That's a big drop in performance, what's going on? Well, it appears that all of the hits are ending up spread very wide over the targets. This does lead to some quick legging kills on light mechs in other tests, but overall this isn't very good.

We have one more to go though, indirect:
https://youtu.be/K67tm-79XiU

Interesting. Not quite as good effect as the live server test, and I'm really slipping up in this one, but I managed to complete the course. What seems to be happening is that more hits seem to be landing in the torso sections, possibly due to the angle. Regardless, this seems to be doing alright, as the outline did call for nerfs to indirect fire. I find my results to be satisfactory in light of this and well in-line with the PTS to my understanding.


I suspect that tightening the weapon spread while Line of Sight is maintained could greatly help make the damage from direct fire more effective, and possibly not overly punish pilots of Light Mechs with how much damage it going to the legs.

Well, I suppose I can leave a few words for the new trajectory. I like it. It works fairly well, if a bit finicky sometimes, but seems to work much more than not and the time to target is improved by a very noticeable degree. This, along with sorting out the damage in the new direct fire, should lead to more interesting gameplay with LRMs.

[The6thMessenger]

Edited by The6thMessenger, 19 January 2019 - 03:49 AM.

[Bad Pun]

New PTS and new performance. LRMs with Line of sight have been buffed and it does show. Performance is much more consistent, though still worse from live even with direct line of sight. About 20% more missiles are required to achieve kills in this current iteration rather than +30% as the last one. The testing on indirect shows that it has been pushed to the +30% mark and I think this is a good place. It's damage that's ineffective enough on its own to promote more direct play and/or coordinated use of TAG and NARC. However, NARC alone did not seem to improve the effectiveness of the spread in a meaningful way, but it was hecking convenient to be able to keep locks.

New additions in the faster lock times are definitely welcome, and with the one bug in the animation already brought to attention I'll not worry about it. I have not been able to test that in a private match, so I can't say if it's any more than visual. Still, it's rather annoying. Besides that the direct/indirect fire seems much more fluid between the two, maybe in part of the base velocity returned to 190, I like it.

The increase to heat of Clan launchers is noticeable, but not terribly intrusive. This was mostly done with four cLRM-10 launchers as with the previous tests. Some testing with other launchers, two cLRM-10+A with two cLRM15+A and four LRM-20+A (both Clan and IS on the last, it was fun) shows that the ghost heat isn't too terrible. Repeated alphas will quickly lead to shutdown, but you can still get two if you have enough heatsinks (16+).

As for ATMs, I tested them somewhat but didn't feel much difference. I still am convinced though that they need their minimum damage removed and their damage profile changed to 2.4/2.0/1.6. Having 3 damage per missile is a bit much, that's up to 6 damage per ton of the weapon, nearly as much as cSRMs with 8 and better than cSRM6s with Artemis, 4.8. Easily offsetting the minimum range. But 1 damage per missile is much too low at long range, as little as 1.71 damage per ton compared to the 5 a cLRM can bring as well as with an ammunition penalty? Not even worth pulling the trigger.

Edited by Bad Pun, 07 February 2019 - 03:31 AM.