109 replies to this topic

[InnerSphereNews]

Greetings MechWarriors!

Following up on the LRM Update PTS 1.0, we will be conducting a second round of PTS testing that will be referred to as Long Range Missile Update PTS 2.0 beginning Wednesday, February 6th beginning at 2PM PST (10PM UTC.) And closing on February 11th 10AM PST (6PM UTC.) This test will have a number of major changes over the previous PTS 1.0. Primary points include:

• Backend changes have been made to better improve the logic behind the determination of when a target is in or out of direct line of sight for the purposes of an LRM firing Arc.
  
• A number of new features have been added in order to bring more direct distinction between shots made in direct line of sight fire vs. indirect fire.
  
• Further balance testing with a focus on the give and take between direct LOS fire vs. indirect fire modes.
  
• An overhaul of the Weapon Lock-On system.
  
• Improvements to TAG + NARC to account for all other changes being tested.
  

The primary focus of this PTS testing series is to smoke test the overall functionality of the direct vs. indirect system introduced in PTS 1.0. While PTS 1.0 concluded with an overall positive impression of the changes, there were a number of players who reported unintended or strange behavior that would result in some volleys within direct LOS using an indirect arc, and volleys out of LOS using a direct LOS arc. Thanks to specific examples given through this feedback, we were able to identify a number of bugs and have taken steps to improve the backend for determining when a volley is within LOS or not. Testing these improvements and continuing to smoke test for any other potential issues will be a primary focal point of PTS 2.0.

While the initial PTS 1.0 focused on the core direct vs. indirect arc changes, PTS 2.0 will expand upon what was in PTS 1.0 to drive distinctions between LOS vs. Indirect across a number of additional systems beyond just the firing arcs. We will briefly explain the core changes presented with these system changes below, with more specific values provided in the weapon change list.

As with PTS 1.0, the values provided here are tuned explicitly for testing purposes, and as such, are not final release values. We will be reviewing both PTS data and player feedback from this PTS. Additionally, as mentioned above, one of the primary purposes of this PTS is for performance smoke testing on all Direct / Indirect fire mode mechanics. Please report any abnormalities in behavior beyond what is described here, or in the original PTS 1.0 announcement in the PTS forums.

For details on how to access this PTS, please refer to our initial announcement.

*Note, all references to “previous” values are referencing values present on PTS 1.0 not values on the live client.

LRM Arc Behavior Improvements:

• Improved the backend for determining what is and is not a direct fire shot.
  

Design Notes: As stated above, thanks to player feedback, we were able to track down a number of behavior bugs and make improvements to the overall direct vs. indirect system. We wish to test these improvements and continue to smoke test for potential issues prior to release. Be sure to report any abnormal behavior to the PTS forums.

Weapon Lock-On System Overhaul:

We received a number of feedback points from PTS 1.0 revolving around the global timer for lock-on weapons being inadequate to handle both direct and indirect fire shots, as well as requests to see boosts when in direct line of sight. We agreed with the overall feedback, but wanted to take this concept even further in order to both differentiate direct vs. indirect fire, but also bring more direct importance to the sensor system with how it relates to indirect fire. Like LRM direct vs. indirect locks, the weapon lock-on system will now be broken up into two distinct states dependent on if you have direct LOS to the target or not.

Direct LOS:

• Attempting a weapon lock in direct LOS will see a 20% reduction in weapon lock-on time compared to what is on Live currently.
  
• This rate is a flat rate that applies equally at all ranges provided you have direct LOS to the target, and is not augmented in any way.
  

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.
  
• These lock-on times are still modified in both positive and negative ways by equipment such as ECM, TAG, and NARC.
  
• Sensor range increases can potentially impact your indirect lock-on time dependent on where the target is relevant to your total sensor range. The further into your sensor range, the faster the lock-on time.
  
• TAG and NARC will have expanded functionality in how they will interact with indirect fire described below to account for these changes.
  

Design notes: While we will be getting into more specifics further below in the weapon’s section, it should be mentioned now that we will be re-instating the velocity values from live to all LRM launchers. These changes will act as a more direct delay in firing against targets at longer ranges outside of LOS, but the volley themselves will be just as fast as they are on live and will not carry with them the nerfs they received in PTS 1.0.

Indirect Missile Volley Spread:

• Base LRM spread values will revert back to their live spread settings.
  
• Missile volleys fired upon indirect targets will see an increase in spread.
  
• This spread is currently tuned to a 20% increase over the launcher’s base value.
  
• This functionality applies to both LRMs and ATMs.
  

*Known Issue: Mechlab tooltips currently show “Indirect” spread value instead of base LOS spread value.

Design Notes: Feedback from PTS 1.0 highlighted that the arc changes alone where not enough to differentiate the weapon spread against certain targets, with some targets being better shot at indirectly then directly. This change aims to make the spread interactions between direct and indirect fire more apparent. We will be testing with the 20% values for the PTS, but we wish to stress that this again is only a testing value. We will wish to collect data and take in feedback on these particular settings. The individual changes will be listed below.

TAG + NARC Feature Additions:

One consistent bit of feedback against the current testing system of buffing direct fire LRM, but toning down indirect fire LRM was that there was still a desire to reinforce indirect fire potency through the use of team based equipment such as TAG and NARC. And that any nerfs we took off of the baseline LRM equipment should be rolled over as perks to the TAG and NARC systems. On this front we are in agreement. With the expanded functionality of the Weapon Lock-On system, and the new penalties to the spread from indirect fire, we feel it is fair enough to have ways of re-introducing LRM’s current indirect potency provided it is accomplished through teamwork with specialized equipment.

TAG changes:

• Weapon Lock-On speed booster removed
  
• Targets that are being painted by TAG are treated as if they are in direct LOS for the purposes of Weapon Lock-On time and Missile spread. Counteracting the changes made in the above sections.
  

NARC changes:

• Targets with an active NARC pod attached to them are treated as if they are in direct LOS for the purposes of Missile Spread. Counteracting the changes made in the missile spread section.
  

Design notes: We are rolling the Weapon Lock-On properties of TAG into the core Direct Fire Lock-On mechanics. Because of this, we are eliminating this boost on the base property of the weapon in order to further reinforce its primary role as a team boosting piece of equipment rather than a personal enhancement device. People who wish to have LRM’s remain at their current levels of indirect potency will need to maintain TAG painting in order to achieve both heavy indirect lock-on time boosts plus boosts to Missile spread when firing indirectly.

For NARC, we are only providing it with the boost to spread. This is due to the fact that the base NARC equipment keeps a sensor lock even outside of indirect LOS to the enemy. This is to allow a bit more time to respond to your ‘Mech being NARCed before longer ranged bombardments have a chance to lock onto you. Although locks against you will have boosted spread potency.

Missile Projectile Health vs AMS Tuning:

A shallower angle of attack within PTS 1.0 allowed LRM’s to better respond to AMS equipped ‘Mechs. Putting AMS in an odd spot where further buffs to the equipment itself would be beneficial against LRM tuning, but would aggravate current performance against other missile systems, particularly ATMs. With this PTS, we have expanded the balance tools on our end to allow us to better tune individual missile volleys against the AMS system. We will be testing this feature change this PTS under the following parameters:

• Volleys are tuned at the launcher level.
  
• 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.
  
• Initial tuning for PTS 2.0 testing will be the LRM 5 launcher will be set as the baseline for what was previously tested on PTS.
  
• From there, larger LRM launchers will have less health making them more vulnerable to AMS fire.
  
• While this will increase vulnerability, this tuning is still set to AMS acting as a “soft” counter that reduces potential damage from incoming shots, instead of being a hard counter to all missile systems.
  
• ATMs have been tuned with increased health to account for their smaller per-missile volleys (although they will still be more susceptible to AMS fire compared to other weapon systems due to their relatively low volley sizes.)
  
• For the purpose of this PTS, we will only be focusing this AMS tuning on LRMs and ATMs. All other missile systems will retain their current behavior.
  

Design notes: Although we will only be focusing on LRMs and ATMs for the purpose of this PTS, we will be taking feedback on the changes made here and will propagate this throughout the missile systems to better tune the interactions between AMS and the entirety of the missile roster upon release.

Weapon Changes:

LRM Changes

LRM 5:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 5.04
  
• LOS spread reverted to 4.2 (from 4.6)
  

LRM 10:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 5.04
  
• LOS spread reverted to 4.2 (from 4.6)

LRM 15:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 6.24
  
• LOS Spread reverted to 5.2 (from 5.6)
  

LRM 20:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 6.24
  
• LOS Spread reverted to 5.2 (from 5.6)
  

C-LRM 5:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 5.46
  
• LOS spread reverted to 4.55 (from 5)
  
• Heat increased to 2.4 (from 2.25)
  

C-LRM 10:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 5.46
  
• LOS Spread reverted to 4.55 (from 5)
  
• Heat Increased to 2.4 (from 2.25)
  

C-LRM 15:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 6.66
  
• LOS Spread reverted to 5.55 (from 6)
  
• Heat increased to 5 (from 4.65)
  

C-LRM 20:

• Velocity reverted back to 190 (from 175)
  
• Indirect Spread set to 6.66
  
• LOS Spread reverted to 5.55 (from 6)
  
• Heat increased to 6 (from 5.6)
  

LRM Design Notes: For the purposes of this test, we will be examining the heat on the Clan side of the LRM lineup. The heat buffs to LRMs pre-date the recent changes to the heat system, and therefore, can always use a second look to account for changes made since their introduction. But at this time, we are not in agreement that this is a universal issue with the weapon system across both tech bases. As sustained DPS is where we wish to see LRMs excel against the greater weapon roster and accounting for the numerous amount of drawbacks already associated with the weapon.

But when it comes to the Clan side, there are a number of factors we feel creates a divide when it comes to how it is balanced against their IS counterparts:

• Both their Minimum Range, and Low damage per-ton drawbacks are not as pronounced on the Clan models compared to the IS model launchers.
  
• The streamed missile volley results in their heat being applied across the duration of their shot rather than as a singular heat spike as you see on the IS side, which allows the overall heat gained to be lower than similar loadouts on the IS side due to how heatsinks continue to cool mid-shot as opposed to being applied in a rapid spike.
  

Because of the above, we are willing to test the Clan side launchers to their pre-June 2018 levels and monitor the changes. It should be noted as well that the heat penalty changes present in PTS 1.0 will still be present here in PTS 2.0. Which will mean higher heat penalties compared to what was previously encountered on PTS 1.0.

ATM Changes:

Clan ATM 3

• Indirect Spread set to 4.44
  

Clan ATM 6

• Indirect Spread set to 4.68
  

Clan ATM 9

• Indirect Spread set to 5.46
  

Clan ATM 12

• Indirect Spread set to 5.46
  

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.

We would like to thank all of those that provide us with feedback on this matter. Feel free to continue to provide feedback within the PTS forum.

[FupDup]

Why does the Clan LRM5 have the same heat as the Clan LRM10? Is that just a typo?

[Navid A1]

Looks pretty informative except for 1 important case:

What happens when you have LOS and the target is NARC'd or TAG'd? Any benefits there?

The notes imply that NARC and TAG do not affect missiles with LOS.

[Chris Lowrey]

FupDup, on 05 February 2019 - 06:16 PM, said:

Why does the Clan LRM5 have the same heat as the Clan LRM10? Is that just a typo?

I knew it was going too smoothly when I was playing with all the new features.

It was supposed to be re-set to 4 as per the pre-July 2018 patch changes, but looks like it might have snuck in given the amount of other changes in-play. Making a note of it now so it gets corrected,although I am not sure if I will be able to correct / rebuild before it hits the test. I'll see what I can do.

[Chris Lowrey]

Navid A1, on 05 February 2019 - 06:29 PM, said:

Looks pretty informative except for 1 important case:

What happens when you have LOS and the target is NARC'd or TAG'd? Any benefits there?

The notes imply that NARC and TAG do not affect missiles with LOS.

TAG will still gain it's current spread boosts but will no longer gain any benefits in lock-on time, those have been rolled into the core LOS vs. Indirect Lock-On mechanics. It will remain consistent with the spread boost with Artemis you see on live. It will have a greater impact with standard missiles, where with Artemis,it will provide a boost, but it has a bit of diminishing returns.

For NARC, you still get the primary feature of the pod tracking the target for you behind cover, and it will still provide a spread boost on top of the standard spread (even for indirect shots) but the Artemis bonus will over-ride this in direct fire situations. It will not stack.

[VonBruinwald]

Quote

With this PTS, we have expanded the balance tools on our end to allow us to better tune individual missile volleys against the AMS system. We will be testing this feature change this PTS under the following parameters:

• Volleys are tuned at the launcher level.
  
• 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.
  

The problem with this is people will boat the smaller launchers to punch through AMS, leaving 'mechs with fewer missiles hard-points at a disadvantage if they want to take the the same amount of tubes.

This will be most pronounced with Clan missile launchers as 4xcLRM5s already fire in a shorter stream maxing them better at punching through AMS compared to an cLRM20. And now you want to reduce the health of the missiles on the 20's...

[FupDup]

VonBruinwald, on 05 February 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

The problem with this is people will boat the smaller launchers to punch through AMS, leaving 'mechs with fewer missiles hard-points at a disadvantage if they want to take the the same amount of tubes.

This will be most pronounced with Clan missile launchers as 4xcLRM5s already fire in a shorter stream maxing them better at punching through AMS compared to an cLRM20. And now you want to reduce the health of the missiles on the 20's...

Having more missile hardpoints almost always comes at the cost of fewer energy and/or ballistic hardpoints. You should gain something in that exchange.

[Chris Lowrey]

VonBruinwald, on 05 February 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

The problem with this is people will boat the smaller launchers to punch through AMS, leaving 'mechs with fewer missiles hard-points at a disadvantage if they want to take the the same amount of tubes.

This will be most pronounced with Clan missile launchers as 4xcLRM5s already fire in a shorter stream maxing them better at punching through AMS compared to an cLRM20. And now you want to reduce the health of the missiles on the 20's...

You'll have to see for yourself tomorrow, but the PTS tuning isn't that drastic. If a single AMS can shoot down 3 missiles on the approach for an LRM 5, against an LRM 20, it will probably shoot down around 5-7 missiles. This is all open for further tuning though so be sure to try it out and get feedback to us.

[Navid A1]

Chris Lowrey, on 05 February 2019 - 06:38 PM, said:

TAG will still gain it's current spread boosts to non-Artemis based missiles but will no longer gain any benefits in lock-on time, those have been rolled into the core LOS vs. Indirect Lock-On mechanics.

For NARC, you still get the primary feature of the pod tracking the target for you behind cover, and it will still provide a spread boost on top of the standard spread (even for indirect shots) but the Artemis bonus will over-ride this in direct fire situations. It will not stack.

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

Edited by Navid A1, 05 February 2019 - 06:56 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

The changes looks lovely, and the dynamic lock-time in terms of distance is quite a big deal, that is a rather smart integration. The TAG and NARC being "necessary" for IDF is a good change to make them a lot more important in IDF, and should give better importance on Spotting builds. And finally that LOS lock-speed bonus!

Anyways, If i understood it correctly, now lower launchers have higher health/missile? Cause that would be nice. It's always the crux of using a small amount of tubes. Although ATMs do need higher missile health, I hope that it would be applied.

I'll be eagerly waiting to test it.

EDIT:

The dynamic lock-time with distance only works with IDF. Lol, sad.

VonBruinwald, on 05 February 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

The problem with this is people will boat the smaller launchers to punch through AMS, leaving 'mechs with fewer missiles hard-points at a disadvantage if they want to take the the same amount of tubes.

I'm not that concerned with people spamming lower launchers, mainly because there's already (harsher) GH in place to sequester them from matching the volley size of larger launchers, not to mention that the larger launchers are a bit more heat-efficient.

It's a give-and-take, and they are trading damage potential, for damage efficiency, which is kinda okay.

Although I do have a guess that combining the two -- as in firing the small-launchers early before large-launchers could possibly negate the vulnerability of larger launchers because the AMS would instead deal with the lower launchers first. It's basically like spreading damage with missiles.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 February 2019 - 07:34 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

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

- Snip

For TAG: Spread will be consistent with current live values whether direct or in-direct. Lock-ons will always use the Boosted rate which will remain consistent with what is on live right now.

For NARC: Spread will be consistent with current live values whether direct or in-direct, but lock-on times will be dependent on range like all other in-direct weapon locks.

For Indirect lock-ons, small correction, it will be based on range to the target, but it will be based on range to the target against your relative sensor range. So a target at 400 meters and being targeted by a Mech with standard sensors will lock-on slower then a 'Mech firing at the same target at that 400 meters, but has a +100 sensor quirk, skill tree skills, or equipment that boosts sensor range. Its all relative to the physical distance to the target against your total sensor range.

[process]

Wow, digging how comprehensive this all looks on paper. Really looking forward to the field test!

[The6thMessenger]

Wait, I just realized.

With the lock-on being faster at a shorter range, does this have a minimum amount or it would be near instantaneous at something like 120m?

Because i could see ATMs and Streaks being much much much more effective because of it.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 05 February 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

Wait, I just realized.

With the lock-on being faster at a shorter range, does this have a minimum amount or it would be near instantaneous at something like 120m?

Because i could see ATMs and Streaks being much much much more effective because of it.

Minimum indirect lock time is equal to the current value on live.

LOS time will be shorter than Live.

[The6thMessenger]

Navid A1, on 05 February 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

Minimum indirect lock time is equal to the current value on live.

LOS time will be shorter than Live.

Wait, so wouldn't this mean that actually, with range since the lock-time increases with distance, the Lock is actually a nerf at mid-range where LRMs shine and the LOS bonus would ultimately net less buff?

EDIT:

Oh wait the lock-time only increases with range, only at IDF locking.

That should have worked with DF too.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 February 2019 - 07:33 PM.

[byter75]

So to give my thoughts on these proposed changes.

Due to the shared lockon mechanics, lockon speed boost benefits all lockon weapons, the biggest beneficiaries of which will be atm and streak (rather than lrm).

Lockon weapons damage is generally so spread over a mech, most of these changes to spread are probably going to be fairly incidental.
Even if they are potent enough, I am not sure this is where lockon weapons should go, making them more akin to direct fire weapons (where you get torso damage rather than spread damage), simply just makes them more of a direct competitor to direct fire, rather than being a tool used to soften the enemy.
A simpler change that reinforces the quality of life improvement for lrms, would be to improve the direct fire arc *and* a faster direct projectile velocity. Exposing for direct fire is risky, if it takes them less time to carry out a volley, the less risk they are taking (whilst at the same time still just softening the foe with large amounts of reliable splash damage, rather than trying to core opponents out faster than direct weapons).

Whilst the tag and narc changes are nice... they are mostly just for group lrm drops (which usually seek to indirect the enemy to death with spotters). In solo que, it's usually not worth taking these tools for your lrm boat friends. In solo que if you are a lrm boat then you bring your own tag/narc. (Though after the large narc cooldown nerf, it can be very hard to justify in solo que (since it's shut down so hard by nearby ecm))

I am not personally the biggest fan of the missile hp changes (I like bigger launchers being encouraged). I wish we could learn what the numbers are behind the changes.

I do really like the indirect fire detection time being impacted by sensor range change. It helps gives a lot more value to sensor range buffs from BAP, skill tree and quirks.

To conclude, for the most part I feel like the biggest changes is the 20% lockon time boost and direct fire lrm arc. Other than lrms 'feeling' better in direct fire situations, they seem mostly the same. Atms and streaks on the other hand really like lockon boosts, particularly when it comes to smacking smaller mechs around with large globs of reliable damage.

Edited by byter75, 05 February 2019 - 07:47 PM.

[Navid A1]

The6thMessenger, on 05 February 2019 - 07:32 PM, said:

Wait, so wouldn't this mean that actually, with range since the lock-time increases with distance, the Lock is actually a nerf at mid-range where LRMs shine and the LOS bonus would ultimately net less buff?

EDIT:

Oh wait the lock-time only increases with range, only at IDF locking.

That should have worked with DF too.

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

Edited by Navid A1, 05 February 2019 - 07:39 PM.

[Jonathan8883]

Quote

• Weapon Lock-On speed booster removed

So there's no longer a point in taking TAG on a missile-carrying mech, except as a counter for ECM. If you can TAG it for your own missiles, you already have direct fire locking, so TAG is useless. It's for "I don't carry missiles" mechs only. That seems counter-intuitive.

Also, no fix on the lock cone nerf means I'll probably be on the "testing against missile boats" side of the PTS, if I can get a match this time. 5 minutes in queue at 9pm Central time during the last PTS for a couple of evenings produced no play.

[Akillius]

Chris Lowrey, on 05 February 2019 - 06:45 PM, said:

You'll have to see for yourself tomorrow, but the PTS tuning isn't that drastic. If a single AMS can shoot down 3 missiles on the approach for an LRM 5, against an LRM 20, it will probably shoot down around 5-7 missiles. This is all open for further tuning though so be sure to try it out and get feedback to us.

So AMS is still nerfed like after PGI removed the lone mech with 1 ams to provide the Umbrella of Protection days.

Also is there a PTS bribe... er I mean PTS reward?
Not that it matters I'll still jump in PTS to find out how fast my piranha with 4 ams will die behind cover from lrms.


EDIT: That probably reads pretty harsh but I rarely use ams and was hoping the near-useless(imo) ams would finally get some attention as well. To counter the more effective lrms that were on PTS last time.
The one "AMS Overload" in skill tree is (imo) a joke. Lets up its actual missiles downed per second somewhere in skill tree, at the very least.

Edited by Akillius, 05 February 2019 - 07:44 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

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

Honestly that is fine.

Well, It's fine for the IDF. Not for DF -- or at least I was wrong because apparently it doesn't work with DF.

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

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.

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

Oh yeah, Artemis. So is still just-spread only?

One of my concern with Clan-Spread is that, well they only modify the COF, while there's also the Stream-Fire that is working against the spread.