109 replies to this topic

[Xeno Phalcon]

InnerSphereNews, on 05 February 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

• An overhaul of the Weapon Lock-On system.

Rut roh raggy! Whats this mean for streaks? sense the systems are still mothballed together.

[Jackal Noble]

That ATM spread stuff is pretty damn bogus.. all things considering. Almost seems tacked on.
While we are just making up things willy nilly, how about making MRMs spread wide close at range and tighten up around 300-500m? Seems about right, considering that the are Medium Range Missiles.

[justcallme A S H]

AMEN - Heat changes! I'll knock off early from work and get some testing on this.

Although only Clan Side, makes it interesting give the strength of IS LRM is the cluster formation which is a brute strength approach.

See if it's enough with some IS LRM testing with all the other changes coming.

Quote

No Direct Line of Sight:

• Indirect Weapon Lock-on time will now be dependent on the range of the target relative to your maximum sensor range.
  
• Indirect locks attempted at close range will retain a timer identical to the timer in the live game as the “base” lock-on time.
  
• The further out the target is relative to your max sensor range, the longer this time will take to acquire. With anything at extreme range or past max sensor range taking the longest time to acquire a lock compared to locks attempted at closer relative sensor range.

Holy nerf bat to non-LoS. I see the counter side of it with supporting NARC/TAG on other friendlys... Gonna be interesting to see how that plays out.

Navid A1, on 05 February 2019 - 07:37 PM, said:

Honestly that is fine.

What I want to test and concerned about is Direct fire with Artemis equipped launchers and a TAG (a common config when you want to fight with LRMs in LOS.

Right now, its a good combination.

The PTS notes implies that it will be less effective due to reduced effect of artemis + TAG

This is exactly how I read it as well.

Sing out when you are testing - if I'm around I'll help ya mate.

[0Jiggs0]

@Chris

If these changes go live, will max sensor range be made visible in the mechlab?

[Koniving]

Lot of good stuff.

But new lesson learned. Want to get through ams, boat lrm-5s. 4 lrm-5 launchers with missiles that have better health than the lrm-20 and less tons is not only going to be more effective in tonnage but also in hits per 20 missiles.

[Nightbird]

I'm glad to see LRMs nerfed. They're not fun to play, with or against. The direct fire nerf will mean it's easier to use minor obstacles to block missiles, and the indirect nerf will hopefully get more LRM boats sharing armor up front. Will this be enough to make LRMs less than unstoppable on maps like caustic, polar, alpine? We shall see.

[Krucilatoz]

InnerSphereNews, on 05 February 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

ATM Design Notes: ATMs in the lore come with ingrained Artemis systems. We play into that lore by rolling the attributes of Artemis into the core properties of the launcher itself. With this change to Direct vs. Indirect LOS, this behavior has to be adapted to the new system, which in this case results in a visible spread setting that is well beyond 20% of the direct fire setting.



This is because the base LOS spread for ATMs is accounting for the Artemis spread reduction bonus, with other properties before working behind the scenes. In cases like this, the ATM's Indirect spread is tuned to account for Artemis not providing any bonuses plus the 20% boost to indirect missile spread being added to LRMs with this PTS.

As a non native english, I genuinely unable to comprehend what those two paragraph. I hope you put something easier such as "spread +x%, heat 5.5 (+0.5)" compared to live.

Navid A1, on 05 February 2019 - 06:54 PM, said:

Thanks for clarification.

Can you then please confirm (or correct) the following conditions then?

LRM with LOS:
- Base spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM indirect:
- 20% wider spread
- High arc
- lock-on time as a function of range

LRM with LOS + TAG
- Tight spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM indirect + TAG
- Base spread (or tight spread?)
- High arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM with LOS + NARC
- Tight spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM indirect + NARC
- Tight spread
- High arc
- lock-on time as a function of range

LRM with LOS + TAG + NARC
- Tightest spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM indirect + TAG + NARC
- Tightest spread?
- High arc
- Base lock-on time






LRM + Artemis with LOS:
- Tight spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM + Artemis indirect:
- 20% wider spread
- High arc
- lock-on time as a function of range

LRM + Artemis with LOS + TAG
- Tightest spread?
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM + Artemis indirect + TAG
- Base spread (or tight spread?)
- High arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM + Artemis with LOS + NARC
- Tight spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM + Artemis indirect + NARC
- Base spread
- High arc
- lock-on time as a function of range

LRM + Artemis with LOS + TAG + NARC
- Tightest spread
- Low arc
- Base lock-on time

LRM + Artemis indirect + TAG + NARC
- Tight spread?
- High arc
- Base lock-on time

Thanks for easier to understand summary

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 05 February 2019 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'm glad to see LRMs nerfed. They're not fun to play, with or against. The direct fire nerf will mean it's easier to use minor obstacles to block missiles, and the indirect nerf will hopefully get more LRM boats sharing armor up front. Will this be enough to make LRMs less than unstoppable on maps like caustic, polar, alpine? We shall see.

?

What?

So you mean, because it's now at a lower arc and thereby not clearing minor obstacles, it's a nerf?

[Nightbird]

The6thMessenger, on 05 February 2019 - 10:42 PM, said:

?

What?

So you mean, because it's now at a lower arc and thereby not clearing minor obstacles, it's a nerf?

Well, against any direct fire mech, the LRM mech will be taking an alpha while locking-on, the direct fire mech will fade behind an obstacle after shooting as the LRM mech lets loose missiles, and before-versus-now, now the missiles will now hit a lot more obstacles. Is this a buff?

The time-to-target for missiles in the direct lock scenario is lock-on time + missile flight time after all, saving 0.5 seconds on the flight path is a tiny percent reduction of that total, but the target decay duration is wasted if obstacles will block a lot more missiles.

Edited by Nightbird, 05 February 2019 - 10:52 PM.

[BROARL]

THANKYOU Chris and PGI for caring about what we think and for trying to improve the game.
LuRMs have always been a subject of debate and i suspect no matter what happens in the future they will remain a topic of conversation, but good luck with that.
could we please have more maps in invasion? i will buy mech packs if you give us new maps to kill each other in.
i don't bother to buy mech packs because LuRMs, but thankyou anyway.

[Nomad One]

The separate spread values for direct and indirect are pointlessly contrived, especially if this difference is not stated or displayed on the weapons tooltip within the mechlab.

I truly hope for the Live implementation that you just use the current live spread values for indirect so as not to make indirect fire completely pointless and reliant on NARC just for basic functionality. A weirdly complicated lock time increase based on sensor range and distance to target is honestly a nerf and a half in itself already, giving people more than enough time to avoid missile volleys. Especially with how prevalent ECM mechs are now, the indirect lock-time increase induced by that piece of equipment AND this overall sensor range coupled by range to target system will ensure that even the slowest sliding glacier builds can maneuver well and truly into cover or just break line of sight to any friendly mechs or UAVs long before a missile lock will be achieved.

People seeking direct locks and then backing up into cover or losing line of sight before they get to fire should not be punished. They will already be forced to play this "long range missile" weapon system counter-intuitively by forcibly getting as close as possible to try and reduce lock times already. Having their weapon become utterly useless because someones lock-on hitbox was obscured by a piece of terrain at the time of firing is not good for enjoyable gameplay.

Three negative changes for LRMs based on these tests; the ghost heat penalty increases, the base heat increase and the increased lock on time based on range will be huge already.

Edited by Nomad One, 05 February 2019 - 11:40 PM.

[Sereglach]

Sorry I didn't get to participate in the first PTS. Life got in the way. However, these 2.0 changes look quite interesting.

- Streaks get an indirect buff due to LOS lock changes, which will be appreciated. This should stem some of the concerns/complaints of various players since the lock-angle decrease.

- Finally seeing differences in locks between LOS and Indirect. That's something we've needed for literal years. The implementation actually looks solid on paper, as well.

- Point of curiosity, could we see lock angle changes based on LOS and Indirect fire? Force someone in Indirect to maintain a rather tight hold on the target while giving someone with LOS a bit more leeway? That would also help mitigate some of the complaints that have come about with the lock angle changes, particularly when it comes to Streaks.

- This system begins to put more emphasis on the old concepts of Information Warfare, which is desperately needed. The sensor tree will become much more valuable to anyone using locking missiles, as well as BAP (possibly -dare I say- also the Command Console?!? Where is that poor item's long awaited rework, anyway?). Now if only we can get more sensor quirks on more mechs . . . or bring in the variant specific sensor ranges of the original Information Warfare PTS runs . . . that'd provide extremely unique facets for preferred LRM/ATM missile boats.

- Missile health vs. AMS . . . first impression seems that the missile health should be based on missile type, not launcher size. That would encourage the desire to take the largest launcher you can for the hardpoint(s) you have. Lowest missile health should be on MRMs, LRMs should be the middle ground, while SRMs and ATMs should be the toughest. That would make AMS reasonably effective against all types of missiles, but having a single AMS would only be a "hard" counter to the smallest launchers at the longest ranges. Please, don't encourage people to boat small launchers any more than the game mechanics already propagate this issue.

- Consider leaving a small (5-10%) bonus on spread for using NARC/TAG within LOS. Particularly in QP, or for PUGs in general, they can't exactly count on others always having NARC/TAG to support a LRM boat. This will retain some value in those who carry their own TAG/NARC to counter ECM, while also providing support to other locking missile users who don't have TAG/NARC. I suppose it's also arguable that beating ECM is enough of a perk for LOS TAG/NARC use, but BAP also does a similar thing for "sweet spot" 3 damage ATM use, without the fuss of holding a TAG on target nonstop.

That's the first impressions. Maybe I'll actually be able to participate in this PTS, but life hasn't been cooperative, recently, for any sort of game playing. Regardless, it's nice to see this moving in a good direction, as this kind of overhaul is a long time coming.

Oh, and of course I can't go without a plug for my baby . . . I hope the Flamer rework isn't too far off after LRMs are sorted out. Seeing this kind of long overdue work, finally happening to LRMs, is actually giving me a little bit of hope for my poor Flamer. Keep it up . . . Please and Thank You.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 05 February 2019 - 10:49 PM, said:

Well, against any direct fire mech, the LRM mech will be taking an alpha while locking-on, the direct fire mech will fade behind an obstacle after shooting as the LRM mech lets loose missiles, and before-versus-now, now the missiles will now hit a lot more obstacles.

The time-to-target for missiles in the direct lock scenario is lock-on time + missile flight time after all, saving 0.5 seconds on the flight path is a tiny percent reduction of that total, but the target decay duration is wasted if obstacles will block a lot more missiles.

Is this a buff?

You still tank damage when you show your face even right now so that is hardly relevant.

While granted, yes the lower arc means it's no longer circumventing the soft-covers, but you got a lot more benefits like less lock time, smaller spread, less travel time, not to mention that it works on smaller spaces like the lower deck of Crimson Strait.

You got a behavior that would work better when LRMs are employed as DF weapon, so yes , i figure that's a buff. That being said, we're still about to see how much of a buff it is. But if anything, it would be much more accurate to say that it's a tweak.

Nomad One, on 05 February 2019 - 11:21 PM, said:

People seeking direct locks and then backing up into cover or losing line of sight before they get to fire should not be punished. They will already be forced to play this "long range missile" weapon system counter-intuitively by forcibly getting as close as possible to try and reduce lock times already.

Now that you mention it, it would make better sense to just make an LOS bonus lock-time speed depending on distance of lock, than DF lock-time penalty. It'll still be an enough distinction between DF and IDF, but won't be too hard on IDF use.

While using NARC and TAG, it would also would encourage being near the target, and likely near the team precisely because LRM works better closer.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 06 February 2019 - 12:58 AM.

[Major Major Catch 22]

Need more streak lurm builds i think,

I think you should be able to dumb fire then, get lock later once in :LOS

Just like some of todays smart missiles? that can lose lock and reacquire

Edited by Major Major Catch 22, 06 February 2019 - 01:00 AM.

[Curccu]

Major Major Catch 22, on 06 February 2019 - 12:59 AM, said:

Need more streak lurm builds i think,

I think you should be able to dumb fire then, get lock later once in :LOS

Just like some of todays smart missiles? that can lose lock and reacquire

And that would make LRMs OP as hell.
against narced/uac detected enemy you literally could shoot over and past enemy and then lock and make those lurms hit their back.

edit: typo

Edited by Curccu, 06 February 2019 - 02:52 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

InnerSphereNews, on 05 February 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

• Smaller volleys will be tuned with more ingrained health to allow for more missiles from smaller launchers to reach their targets.
  
• Larger Volleys will be tuned to be more vulnerable to AMS fire, resulting in more physical missiles being destroyed against larger volleys

Don't reward stupid. We don't need ******* going back to 9 LRM 5 Archers. Bigger launchers require more tonnage and space and should be harder for a single AMS to stop. Just boost ATM health and be done.

[Purusee]

I was carefully curious about this whole LRM arc rework when it was first added by accident. But now that it starts to get more fleshed out, I am acctually looking forward to try and test it for myself. As long as it'll be more fun to use in the end than what we currently have, I'm fine with what we're offered right now.

[MechTech Dragoon]

I like this allot.
Can play more forward with lrms, need to to be effective.

Can still lurm indirect, at less effectiveness, but it will be massively better if i actually have someone narcing/tagging targets for me.
Just feels right.

Cant wait to test er out.

Edited by MechTech Dragoon, 06 February 2019 - 02:28 AM.

[50 50]

**Need to mention here that while LRMs and ATMs have been mentioned in the patch notes, we should also use this test session to check Streak missiles with the new changes to the lock on mechanic**

Edited by 50 50, 06 February 2019 - 03:36 AM.

[Znozoic]

pgi, plz, buff the AMS, the AMS have to benefit from abilities tree, they also have to be affected by the ammunition nodes, as well as range and cool down. Using 1.5tn of the capacity of your chassis has to be a benefit, and not something aesthetic.... thx...