109 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

Big launchers already have worse missile spread. Why further nerf their missile hp?

[Znozoic]

justcallme A S H, on 06 February 2019 - 12:40 PM, said:

Ah... They already get buffs from the skill tree champ. Suggest you go and take a good look at it.


[/b]


Chris can you confirm on this one the following:

LRM Launchers, their missile hitpoints, are subjective to the launcher size - Does this apply to ATMs or is this a global buff to all ATM launcher sizes with respect to missile hitpoint?

Thanks!

I checked, until January of 2018 no buff, plz, can you tell me the patch note of the buff of the ams? Thx

[Kynesis]

TheCaptainJZ, on 06 February 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

What about a single circle lock on for IDF and the current double circle for DF? Do we really want to clutter the UI more?

I think many people, particularly lower-tier players will not notice another icon or appreciate its significance.
In the heat of battle I think even experienced players would often miss another little red triangle.

The differences between direct vs indirect fire are important and the UI should reflect it with a similar level of importance.
I'd suggest something like rotating the crosshair so that it stands as an X while locking-on with indirect fire and changing its colour.

Edited by Kynesis, 06 February 2019 - 02:39 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Eatit, on 06 February 2019 - 06:17 AM, said:

This doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain how a LONG RANGE missile works better closer.

Projectile speed means the closer you are, the faster the missile hits and less time to react and counter.

Eatit, on 06 February 2019 - 06:17 AM, said:

Is it the no damage inside 180 meters that makes it better closer? I don't think so.
If I'm at 200 meters to a target that I would like to shoot some lrms at, he can just close the 20 meter gap before I even get a lock. This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen on here.

Meanwhile it actually works by default on IDF. The point of it is that, it's not penalizing the IDF use by default, which instead makes it a bonus.

This is the most uninformed statement I've seen here.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 06 February 2019 - 02:29 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Chris Lowrey, on 06 February 2019 - 01:47 PM, said:

It will follow the same convention of LRMs, but will be individually tuned to the ATM launchers. So where on LRM's the LRM 5 is the "baseline" analogue to the current performance that you see on live, for the ATM's, it's the ATM 12 that rests at about where it is on live with smaller launchers gaining more health per volley as you go down in launcher size.

So collectively, ATM's do fair better then LRM's on an individual missile level, but we are still keeping at least one baseline setting similar to what they currently have on live for data collection purposes.

As mentioned in the announcement, this is all subject to feedback so be sure to test it out, and we'll look into it more as we prep it for final release.

And one final thing: While we have the ability to do this across the missile lineup now, for the purposes of this test, we have only done a Tuning pass on LRM's and ATMs, as we still want the primary tests to revolve around the new missile mechanics. We'll take feedback on what is there, and apply it towards the full lineup for final release.

Thanks. So in simple man terms the PTS values are as below (correct if I'm wrong, otherwise assume correct).

ATM12 - missile hitpoint same as Live.
ATM3 / 6 / 9 - missile hitpoint buffed. Such that smaller the launcher the bigger the buff.


The concern from the initial statement was that all ATM's were getting missile HP buffs. Interested to test that one out with ATM6s and 3s which are pretty much neutralised in Live environment by a single AMS.

[Cato Zilks]

Reno Blade, on 06 February 2019 - 11:44 AM, said:

The question for me would be:
does a "volley" of 4x LRM4 count as the same "volley size" as a single LRM20 "volley" if shot together (same second, or below 0.1s or 0.5s) ?

If this is really the launcher size and has nothing todo with how many are shot together, then its not as good as if it would depend on the "shot together" part, as that would be preferable (to equally affect boating).

Chris Lowrey, on 06 February 2019 - 01:47 PM, said:

It will follow the same convention of LRMs, but will be individually tuned to the ATM launchers. So where on LRM's the LRM 5 is the "baseline" analogue to the current performance that you see on live, for the ATM's, it's the ATM 12 that rests at about where it is on live with smaller launchers gaining more health per volley as you go down in launcher size.

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

• Volleys are tuned at the launcher level.

So, I think the answer to that is a no, 4 LRM-5s launched as a group will have better missile health than 1 LRM 20.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 06 February 2019 - 02:35 PM.

[HammerMaster]

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

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.

</p>
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)

</p>
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)

</p>
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.</p>







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.</p>




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. </p>

Everything said here is gold.

[Navid A1]

Wait for a fix to the lock-on system bug.

https://mwomercs.com...ugged-in-pts-2/

[D V Devnull]

Chris Lowrey, on 06 February 2019 - 01:51 PM, said:

Also, sorry, I'm just getting back from lunch, but you can begin to pre-download the PTS now. Although you will not be able to log in until it goes live in 10 minutes.

Pardon me, but where is the Download Link for the PTS Patch File? I'm looking for it, in order to check things, but do not find it anywhere.

~D. V. "in hope that I do not have to track something else down manually" Devnull

[Akillius]

Znozoic, on 06 February 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

I checked, until January of 2018 no buff, plz, can you tell me the patch note of the buff of the ams? Thx

He's going on about the AMS "buff" found in skill tree under "Survival", called "AMS Overload".
Gives an staggering +0.75 buff each for a massive +1.5 buff!!!
It might possibly stop up to an extra 2 or 3 missiles for every 100 fired at your mech...
Its so OP it should be nerfed 10 times and made illegal by law, omg unlock now for uber defense!!!


Seriously though, pretty much anything else as a better use of 2 SP.
But consider this:
With LAMS in game, where's the less heat for LAMS in skill tree?
Why doesn't the existing extra ammo buff add extra AMS ammo since it buffs all other ammos?
With LRMs and missiles getting so much attention in the last few months why isn't the AMS buffs boosted as well.
Why can't we toggle on/off LAMS separately from regular AMS?
etc.
And thats just from me and I don't even use AMS but boy do we all hear about it in-game among the players the majority of whom cannot be bothered to ever log onto the forums here. :/

Edited by Akillius, 06 February 2019 - 05:05 PM.

[D V Devnull]

Akillius, on 06 February 2019 - 04:05 PM, said:

Why can't we toggle on/off LAMS separately from regular AMS?

That's something I've wondered about myself, but keep forgetting to bring up.


On other notes, I still don't see the point of adding further nerfs to IDF, and still think it's not fair to anyone who is Medically Disabled in some way to go around nerfing IDF further. (There's no way to give them some kind of compensating boost for their Real Life Disability anyway.) It's not even possible to torso-twist the CT when using Lock-On Missiles anyway (unlike when Ballistics/PPCs are being used), so making anyone with those weapons have to overexpose really negates the usefulness of the Lock-On Missiles in general. Give the LOS Direct-Fire folks all the nice boosts, but don't do any nerfing to IDF from where it currently stands on the Live Servers. These weapons should not be degraded into a 'noob trap' of some kind.


~D. V. "feeling like someone is sadly trying to get Lock-On Missiles, AMS, and ECM all removed from MWO" Devnull

[Chados]

In the last PTS, if you had a teammate between you and a target nominally in LOS the launcher would switch to high angle. Is that still the case?

[HammerMaster]

4 pages.
No one in PTS.
No matches in 2 hours.

[Akillius]

HammerMaster, on 06 February 2019 - 05:05 PM, said:

4 pages.
No one in PTS.
No matches in 2 hours.

Yeah I just gave up on pts myself.
On the bright side I got to watch a lot of youtube videos because of it tho.

Edited by Akillius, 06 February 2019 - 05:38 PM.

[Axys Rageborn]

Is it possible to get TAG to be a toggle? like AMS

[process]

Welp, no matches tonight. Try again tomorrow.

[eminus]

trying to find a quick play but looks like no one is around

PGI last time there was reward in testing in the PTR I think now that it does not have it that not a lot of players are using their time to test it out

[Horseman]

Rizzi Kell, on 06 February 2019 - 08:15 AM, said:

what About the benefit with Beagle Active Probe?

Since sensor range affects lock speed, BAP now indirectly speeds up your locks.

Akillius, on 06 February 2019 - 04:05 PM, said:

He's going on about the AMS "buff" found in skill tree under "Survival", called "AMS Overload".
Gives an staggering +0.75 buff each for a massive +1.5 buff!!!
It might possibly stop up to an extra 2 or 3 missiles for every 100 fired at your mech...
Its so OP it should be nerfed 10 times and made illegal by law, omg unlock now for uber defense!!!

Wrong.
Refer to PGI's items api for detailed stats on AMS, LAMS, C-AMS, C-LAMS, then check the AMS' stats in the mechlab with the nodes off and on.
The DPS indicated is clearly the damage multiplied by rate of fire and having both nodes active increases the DPS from 105/s to 150/s.
Thus, we know that AMS deals 3.5 danage 30 times a second, with each AMS node buffing that base value by 0.75 for a total of of 5.0 per tick with a fully skilled AMS - a nearly 50% increase in performance.

Questions?

Edited by Horseman, 07 February 2019 - 04:22 AM.

[Larsh]

TheCaptainJZ, on 06 February 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

What about a single circle lock on for IDF and the current double circle for DF? Do we really want to clutter the UI more?

Some out there have also suggested a simple rotation of the reticle to give the notification of No LOS. Would lessen the clutter of the UI.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Akillius, on 06 February 2019 - 04:05 PM, said:

He's going on about the AMS &quot;buff&quot; found in skill tree under &quot;Survival&quot;, called &quot;AMS Overload&quot;.
Gives an staggering +0.75 buff each for a massive +1.5 buff!!!
It might possibly stop up to an extra 2 or 3 missiles for every 100 fired at your mech...
Its so OP it should be nerfed 10 times and made illegal by law, omg unlock now for uber defense!!!


Seriously though, pretty much anything else as a better use of 2 SP.
But consider this:
With LAMS in game, where's the less heat for LAMS in skill tree?
Why doesn't the existing extra ammo buff add extra AMS ammo since it buffs all other ammos?
With LRMs and missiles getting so much attention in the last few months why isn't the AMS buffs boosted as well.
Why can't we toggle on/off LAMS separately from regular AMS?
etc.
And thats just from me and I don't even use AMS but boy do we all hear about it in-game among the players the majority of whom cannot be bothered to ever log onto the forums here. :/

I max out armor and structure on nearly all my mechs. Doing so requires taking either AMS or fall damage skills. I'd be stupid not to take the AMS skills if I'm carrying AMS.

Also, I think the heat gen quirks in the firepower tree apply to LAMS.