109 replies to this topic

[Akillius]

Horseman, on 07 February 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

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.

Majority of players don't know about, don't care about, and never access those json files you linked to. Which showed up as long file of garbly **** (yes I know its just java script formatting code).

And you missed the point completely, most players never come to forums or maybe once a month for something specific.
Most players only look at skill tree and see those two nodes and won't spend the GXP/CBills/SP to enable them to blindly stumble about and find out the hard way.
There is only 2 skill tree nodes and both clearly say 0.75
So if something needs clarification then PGI needs to fix that skill tree wording in game.

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 February 2019 - 06:46 AM, said:

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.

Not that it has anything to do with ams but maxing armor should be a given......................
However not all heavy and assault mechs in QP will max the armor on legs.
So just because you play any game one way, that doesn't mean everyone else plays it the same.

As for heat gen in skill tree if it doesn't say then never assume.
Again Most players only look at skill tree nodes and read what it says.
So if something needs clarification then PGI needs to fix that skill tree wording in game as well.

And since a PGI dev had been monitoring this topic.
I will leave it up to someone at PGI to answer those points which you all brought up and thank you for your assistance.

[Spheroid]

The attribute of tracking strength is not mentioned in these notes. Are those buffs still conferred by TAG/NARC or have they been removed for the purposes of testing?

[Kaeb Odellas]

Akillius, on 07 February 2019 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not that it has anything to do with ams but maxing armor should be a given......................
However not all heavy and assault mechs in QP will max the armor on legs.
So just because you play any game one way, that doesn't mean everyone else plays it the same.

As for heat gen in skill tree if it doesn't say then never assume.
Again Most players only look at skill tree nodes and read what it says.
So if something needs clarification then PGI needs to fix that skill tree wording in game as well.

And since a PGI dev had been monitoring this topic.
I will leave it up to someone at PGI to answer those points which you all brought up and thank you for your assistance.

I'm not talking about armor on individual components. I meant maxing armor and structure skills. In order to max out armor and structure skills, you need to either take the AMS nodes or the fall damage nodes. If you carry AMS in your mech, there's no reason to take the fall damage nodes over the AMS ones unless you're a poptart, in which case you're probably not carrying AMS to begin with.

As for LAMS, you can see that heat gen nodes affect them by hovering over one in the mechlab with heat gen nodes active. You'll see a (-#.##/s) next to its heat stat.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 07 February 2019 - 10:06 AM.

[dwwolf]

Missile arc needs to be user directed.
Low arc will be a nerf in many occasions.

Also a 20% spread ( diameter ) nerf means diluting the missiles over a 44% greater area.
LRMs are already King of Bad damage application, is another ridiculously large nerf to the one unique thing they actually can do warranted ?

I still see no PGI vision in what makes LRMs unique as a weapon system.

Direct fire weapons are still better at direct fire. Trading fire vs em will be especially bad.
The shorter range missile systems are better up close/medium range.
ATMs are vastly better at short to medium range damage application ( much faster, lower min range, insane short range damage, )
SRMs are better at damage spread. MRMs are better at peekaboo/alpha dump.

The only unique LRM qualities were related to its role as dedicated support weapon system :
-versatility in target selection due to IDF arc. ....this gets nerfed with longer lockon times AND forcing low arc in Line of Sight fire mode AND spreading damage over a 44% larger area in IDF.
-longer optimal range than most weapon systems, at the cost of no falloff range at all and attrocious time to target. Again nerfed with longer lockon time.

And LRMs paid for its unique niche with:
- a long time b4 it applied damage ( long travel time )
- ammo inefficiency
- poor at damage application.
- multiple countersystems.
- more team work needed to get more out of the weapon system.

I see no need to piss multiple times on its on its only unique niche. Choose one svp.

If PGI still sees the need to nerf it in the ground can we atleast keep its high arc intact in DF mode ?

Keep the IDF arc and speed up the missiles in DF mode....that is much more inline with the niche LRMs occupies.

Edited by dwwolf, 07 February 2019 - 11:07 AM.

[Horseman]

Akillius, on 07 February 2019 - 09:20 AM, said:

Majority of players don't know about, don't care about, and never access those json files you linked to.

Which is exactly why I provided links to them.

Quote

Which showed up as long file of garbly **** (yes I know its just java script formatting code).

That's an issue with your browser. Chrome displays them fine. Firefox actually formats them as a collapsible tree.

Quote

There is only 2 skill tree nodes and both clearly say 0.75

And the DPS on AMS' tooltip clearly changes from 105 to 150 after they are applied.

You know, just as I have clearly told you already .

Quote

And you missed the point completely, most players never come to forums or maybe once a month for something specific.

You missed my point: I corrected the misinformation you were trying to spread and provided sources that explain how the skill tree bonus actually affects AMS.
Now stop trying to pick a fight over that - it's not going to work.

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 February 2019 - 10:05 AM, said:

As for LAMS, you can see that heat gen nodes affect them by hovering over one in the mechlab with heat gen nodes active. You'll see a (-#.##/s) next to its heat stat.

And the same applies to the Range nodes.

Velocity, however, is confirmed to have no effect: https://mwomercs.com...26-18-jul-2017/

Quote

* Projectile Speed value only affects the visual behavior of the AMS fire particle effect, and has no impact on the mechanics of the weapon.

[D V Devnull]

Alright... I am getting very sick of this... Chris Lowrey has FAILED to publish Direct PTS Patch Download Links, so it has now fallen to me to deal with this again...

Version ------------------>> 0,4,159,0
Size ---------------------->> 296 MB
Download Link --------->> 'http://patcher.mwomercs.com/patch/PublicTest/frontend/FrontendPatch_179.zip'

...and then hope we can all catch up and investigate, after this misery's happening. I have to fight with an ISP that pretty much forces me to use my Web Browser to get much of anything lately, so somebody trying to force me to use a Non-'Web Browser'-Linked Method simply does NOT work. (And yes, I'm sorry, but it DOES make me vehemently angry.)

~Mr. D. V. "explosively tired of a lack of Direct Download Links, and to a massive extent" Devnull

[General Solo]

Lerms freeloaders have had it too good too long.

Apart from that the weapon system is ok as is IMO
Sure make it better direct fire if youse want.

But dont bring tag or narc and get slower locks and more spread, well thats how it should be.

Change is gonna hurt those type of builds that dont consider equipping such things

And if you got some lerms with backup up weapons type of build, well you cant really call your self a proper lermer (more of a generalist) and thus shouldn't get the full benefits of the awesomeness being a proper lermer can bring.

Unless you got one on your team, a proper lermer.......Muhahahahahaha

As for Narc and TAG I would like that lock speed is same regard less of range, coz that is what that equipment is for
Specialized lermage, not good for any thing else apart that except from narcs teamwide wall hack

Keep up the good work testers

Oh yes I agree the game should assume that players have never heard of battletach and mech warrior and include documentation to clue those folks up

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 08 February 2019 - 08:20 PM.

[D V Devnull]

Well, I finally had a chance to check some things on the PTS, albeit that it took time away from a Live Server Event in the midst of my already having lacking time, and I'm rather disgusted and dismayed. And NO, there is literally ZERO Trolling coming from me, sorry! I'm only posting this as constructively as I possibly can, and with as much note to game-wide impact pointed out as possible for me to communicate right now. While many things seemed nice, the following things seriously stuck out gruesomely at me...

• Nerfs to Indirect Fire beyond Current Live Server State -- BAD... Do NOT do this!!!
  I'm sorry, but this nerfing to Indirect Fire is something that we really need to avoid completely. Why? Take into account the spectrum of limitations upon those who are very much NOT physically quote-unquote "fighting fit", and what it instantly means to them if this game is redesigned to force them into a twitch-type battle situation where smooth movement is an absolute requirement. Those with such kinds of Medical Disabilities (Who also, by the way, can NOT use most of the lineup of Ballistics and Energy Weapons properly!!!) are instantaneously nothing more than what could be called "cannon fodder" at that point, unable to support their Team in any reasonable way. It's already NOT possible to twist the CT while tracking an opponent to make missiles hit, unlike with Ballistics and Energy PPCs, so they're open to being unfairly killed way beyond too easily if forced out into the open to get any of what they need. Regardless of the loadout that someone is bringing, be it me or someone else, they should be able to keep their supporting teammates alive. Therefore, because it pays more to keep Teammates alive, they should also NOT want to ever rudely overexpose their supporters against the Enemy Team. Those who use a Support-Style Mech are already going to take a beating if their Team gets flanked, and their Team is going to need their support to get in close and unleash whatever shorter-ranged hell that the brawlers and other Direct-Fire users are bringing, as well as the supports are going to need help to survive the closer-ranged encounters that can happen if they ultimately decide willingly to get in there and follow their Teammates. They should NOT be actively forced into such situations, unlike what the grossly toxic people in the Player Base think should happen, and I'm now at the point of being personally & vehemently sick of the whining. Generally speaking, those who close the gap don't need the missiles coming from their Support Pilots spreading too wide and missing whatever they need suppressed in order to close the distance, because that makes it all too easy for Opposing Long-Ranged Direct Fire to ignore usage of strategy and simply wipe out the brawlers who still need to close that distance gapping. Impact-wise, if the Indirect Fire on missiles is nerfed any further than what it is on the Live Servers, the outcome is that anyone with a Medical Disability preventing them from being able to do smooth twitch-type movements will be rendered no longer able to play here on MWO at all. They'll be effectively given no choice but to leave, feeling like somebody just jammed a Middle Finger in their face, and further feeling like someone promptly slammed the door shut on them in instant succession. Due to what I know from the BattleTech Lore about how Medically Disabled MechWarriors were put in Non-FrontLine Support Roles, instead of just being forcibly put to pasture, any attempt to further nerf Indirect Fire beyond the Current Live Server State is thoroughly bad behavior for ANY game company to do on a MechWarrior-based game, PGI being no exception, and needs in the extreme to be very strictly avoided. Like, really, STOP trashing the support-using Teammates already, and STOP trashing the size of the Player Base in the process! Even further, STOP trying to make any weapon type you don't like into a 'Noob Trap' that doesn't work. While we're at it, STOP trashing all the Newbies who come in when they're still trying to learn to play, which means they are also simply NOT able to play the way you instantly want of them from their first Match! If people don't get to be comfortable with a game first (that includes the Medically Disabled), and develop their own skills that they feel proud of, then they will never stick around, which also means the Player Base will stagnate or shrink, instead of growing. Growth is the atmosphere we should foster. The atmospheres of shrinkage, stagnation, toxicity, hatred, and such suckage of the like are all things that should meet their death, so that MWO can live far into the future.
  
• Personal Target Decay is FAILING to keep tighter Spread -- HORRIBLE... Fix this on PTS!!!
  So, you've spent time to get your own Lock, and therefore you SHOULD be getting the Direct-Fire Bonus for Spread, but you NEED the higher angle to ever have any chance at hitting your target. Step behind the nearby terrain obstacle, and pull that happy trigger which you wanted to touch. But, you find that Your Missiles have fully switched to nerfed Indirect Fire on Your Own Lock as you attempt to resume tracking visually in short bursts, all while it's not really safe to just stand out in the open with your CT easily exposed, and you should be operating in a Hit-And-Run Manner as to how you're moving. Those missiles therefore will fail to properly hit the target that you spent all that lovely time for setting up the shot on. This occurs without regard to the Lock being Personally Yours, and that it's Your Target Decay helping maintain the Lock-On to your Intended Enemy Target so that you would have any chance at ever hitting it. This should be completely fixed to maintain the Spread Bonus, even if the angle changes, so that Your Missiles go right where they deserve to be, which is -- yeah, you guessed it -- on the Enemy Mech's Armor to deal damage. You spent the effort, so it rightly deserves to NOT be trashed in any way whatsoever! Frankly, I don't think anyone at PGI really thought about this Usage Case, but it seriously NEEDS to have the code written for such. Anything smaller than about a 70-Ton Heavy simply can not just sit there in a horribly overexposed state, or they meet instant death and their firepower goes to waste. They're stuck with an effective requirement to launch a strike and fade, or they'll otherwise be wiped and Their Team will lose the firepower that was brought on that Mech for the Match in question. I'm left, almost outrightly rhetorically, to ask... Has most everyone forgotten about Strategy, which is a requirement to win pretty much any war (including one in a game) in the end? Please cease with shattering my hope that someone remembers how to use strategy!
  
• Narrow Initial Lock Angle allows Face-Hug Exploit -- UGLY... Needs Live Server HotFix!!!
  When you're dealing with an Enemy Mech that has jammed itself right in your face, it should be far more than just the Center 1/9th of the Target Brackets that is usable for the Locking Area. Your Reticle should be able to get a Lock-On from literally anywhere that is within that red-edged box, regardless of the Range to the Target in front of you. This is causing point-blank distance situations in battle where the Enemy Mech can block your Lock-On just by face-hugging your own Mech on the field. Worse, it can be considered an 'Abusable Exploit' because they are doing that 'Lock Blocking' without the help of ECM, Natural Terrain, AMS, and/or Stealth Armor. They can even negate both NARC and TAG with that method, which makes such an Exploit absolutely horrid to have ever let into the MWO Live Servers, where it just happens to be at this very moment. Of a rather Major Note, this is also hurtful to Medically Disabled people who can not track smoothly, as they lack the ability to compensate in reasonable time for their Lock being blown in this manner. Their own Real Life Disability is effectively being used against them by their opponent, and that should NOT be allowed by the game's coding. So, rather frankly, I do not see any blame toward all those who have been victims of this problem, while being able to drop plenty of blame on those who would use such an Exploit, seeing as this Exploit was shamefully introduced by PGI themselves without realization of the impact, and has been allowed to run amok for all this time. This damnable Exploit really should be fixed on the Live Servers immediately with a HotFix Patch to correct the problem. It was severely undeserved to have let this happen in the first place anyway.
  
• Active Sensor Systems are MISSING from MWO -- UGH... I will have to write a proposal?
  Yeah, it's really all gone and come down to this. One of the hallmarks of the MechWarrior Game Series has been the option of Passive Radar and Active Sensors, and MWO just does not have it. People using Lock-On Weapons should be able to get their own Locks without regard to having a Teammate who can help them, even if they're in need of setting up a shot beforehand. However, the toxic manner in which a part of the Player Base wishes to currently handle the matter at this time is just nowhere near sanity. We need the ability to toggle between being able to sense around (even at the price of revealing ourselves on the battlefields), and hiding our sensor signature until we have a Direct Sighting on our opponents. This should have been one of the Core Design Measures of MWO, and would have equally allowed some useful Server-Side Anti-Hacking Measures to be set up to prevent a lot of what Cheating which I have heard has happened in the past. It definitely would have been a pure Win for PGI, as well as a Win for the MWO Player Base in general. Oh well, I guess I know what Game Feature Forum Thread which I'm going to create from scratch next is, because it's hellishly overdue!
  
• PTS V2 Form of TAG lacks Lock Speed Boost -- GEEZ... Should be Small Fraction of Live!
  Okay, what happened here? Somebody brings a TAG, cuts through Enemy ECM, is basically painting it for their whole Team, but doesn't get any Boost on time for their effort? Okay, I can see where carrying in the Live Variant's amount of Locking Speed Boosting could be a tad too much. However, I just don't see doing away with this Boost entirely. I would instead recommend here that we give the equivalent of somewhere from 10% to 35% of a Lock Speed Boost (probably 20% would be about right) of what is given on the Live Servers in tandem with the Other Direct-Fire Mechanics on the PTS for the effort spent to even get in that position in the first place. It simply is not very likely that once you have the TAG lined up that there will be much time to keep it on the Enemy Target, so completing what you need to do is dangerously vital to Your Team and the overall success of your side of the battle. If you are unable to get it done, then why would you bring a TAG in the first place? Something tells me that you would not... right? Looks like that would render those questions into pretty much a totally rhetorical state, sad to say.
  
• PTS V2 Direct-Fire LRM Angle is rather Too Low -- YIKES... Kick the Angle up a little!
  You're probably sitting there wondering what I am talking about. Well, let me ask you the following... Would you REALLY want to hit your Teammates in the back by accident, after you've already pulled the trigger, just because they didn't watch where you're pointed? I would like to think not! So yeah, the Arc really needs to be adjusted to allow your missiles to sail past Your Teammates' collective heads, in order to hit the Enemy Mechs on the other side of them. Otherwise you're looking at doing an unacceptable amount of Team Damage that you probably never wanted to do in the first place. I think I can reasonably rest certain that you don't want your Personal Payment and Match Score to take a nosedive!
  
• Problem of "Face-Hug Teammate" vs. PTS IDF Spread -- OUCH... More reason NOT to nerf IDF!
  Yeah, I know you've seen it happen. You've got that "Glory-Hog Teammate" who just can't stand back far enough to allow their own Team to help them stay alive, and the only way to deal with it is LRM-ing the Enemy Mech to save their life and get yourself some more payment. They're going to go face-hug the Enemy, because they want that Kill so badly, and they just don't care about the ramifications. Well, it gets worse for them, and therefore you as well, if the Missile Spread is nerfed beyond Current Live Server Status on Indirect Fire missile launching. Your own Teammate kills your Spread Bonuses by breaking your Line-Of-Sight setup, and also forces you into hurting them right along with the Enemy Mech that you are trying to save them from. If PGI nerfs IDF any more at this point, that's your future in regard to LRMs from your own Teammates when you're literally point-blank on Range to the Enemy, and your own AMS/ECM/Stealth just won't protect you from that. So it doesn't matter who you are, think very hard about making Friendly Fire just that much more unfriendly. Something tells me from all the way deep down inside that you're just not going to want that self-induced mayhem coming into MWO and ruining your own enjoyment of the game!

...and now with all of this said, I'm going to make one thing very clear... I am personally allowing myself to get involved with this discussion in order to see the future of MWO be a bright one for literally Everyone who can sit vertically, and prevent MWO from becoming doomed & dead... well, should that even be possible. It should be bright for far more than just those who happen to lack any kind of Medical Problems, and should be something that anyone who has at least functional-but-coarse movement of their hands on a Mouse & Keyboard can get into and enjoy. (Yes, I know... If someone is unable to sit up and use their hands & arms, then they wouldn't be able to play most computer games anyway, MWO included!) This is becoming a lost art of Video Game Design, and I'll be damned if that's going to happen to the MechWarrior Game Series as well. Let's throw the toxicity out the window, cease with trying to kill the MechWarrior Hallmark (also a Real Life Hallmark) of Indirect Fire, and work on making the overall game more playable and enjoyable for all, but without regard to a person's particular playing style. It's simple to realize that this is very much NOT "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" or any of those other similarly-designed games, so let us cease with trying to make it like that. Remember, anyone who's in great shape now could become easily Medically Disabled somehow in the future at some point, and I would very much prefer nobody ever gets put out to pasture just over that little problem, not even someone who is currently a Competitive-Level Player!

~Mr. D. V. "So many things glare at me from PTS Version 2 that it was NEVER funny." Devnull





(p.s.: I'm sure there's a lot more about PTS V2 which I could have said, had I thought of it. Should more come to mind, the next constructive post will be on it's way here!)

(p.p.s.: By the way, this post took upwards of Four Hours to build. I've done all the proofreading and checking that I possibly could. I really hope I don't have to fix anything after this, because the Formatting would be hell to fight with!)

[Reno Blade]

Thank you for the detailed feedback DV.
I dont agree with your comments, but all feedback is relevant for this test.

I can understand that any "nerf" is seen negatively, but the dps that is possible with IDR-LRM boats is crazy.

The weapon should be much better without boating than boated and risk/reward should be high, thats why I like the idea of DF buffs over IDF.
It's important to have some balance in place that rewards the higher risk of DF, otherwise you will just stay in cover and use IDF, because you will be save, right?

I like the idea of AMS being stronger against larger launchers and someone mentioned the idea of lower "ghost health" / "ghost spread" of larger volleys (boats).

[D V Devnull]

Yay! Someone to share more of my thoughts with... ...
(and this post is going to be so long that I'm skipping a bunch of emotes)

---

Reno Blade, on 09 February 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

Thank you for the detailed feedback DV.
I dont agree with your comments, but all feedback is relevant for this test.

Hi there. I'm glad to be able to provide the input, even if not everyone fully agrees with it. Like I said before, I want MWO to last far into the future, unlike its' predecessors. Only constructive discourse can do that.

Reno Blade, on 09 February 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

I can understand that any "nerf" is seen negatively, but the dps that is possible with IDR-LRM boats is crazy.

Eh, it ain't that crazy. I can start with 2000+ Missiles on a given round, try to stay IDF the whole time and end up at the constant mercy of Teammates who have lost locks, and range wildly from 250 to 1000 total damage, most of the time never even reaching 600 damage. That's some bad DPS right there, and I can already tell you that anyone who gets at least some of their own Lock-Ons will always do a hell of a lot better. When I pop up on Live Servers to get some of my own Locks, I can boost that to range around anywhere from 400 to 1100 total damage, with issues trying to get past 750 damage. There's so much AMS and ECM out there already, as well as a general lack of teamwork, as to make it hard on most days to make anything hit properly. So I already know that IDF users simply do NOT have it that good at all.

When I then stop to think about how much harder it is on Medically Disabled people to get IDF hits on the enemy (seeing as I do know some people with problems who normally happen to be unable to properly use Ballistics and Energy Weapons), I'm sitting there just appreciating that they even try to continue playing MWO with the Current Live Server State. I would hate to see them take it in the shorts through further IDF nerfing, particularly because of the toxic people who think that everyone has to brawl and be constantly exposed like a gladiator arena that lacks cover of any kind. That just removes all Strategy & Planning, which then makes rounds into an uninteresting facetank-fest, and ruins things for anyone that happens to be unable to track smoothly (even on low settings, and therefore would also suffer problems with torso twisting in time) with their mouse. The end result would be that those with such Medical Disabilities would end up leaving MWO, and I'm trying to stop that from happening. The smaller the Player Base gets, the worse it becomes for everyone.

Reno Blade, on 09 February 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

The weapon should be much better without boating than boated and risk/reward should be high, thats why I like the idea of DF buffs over IDF.

Okay, no argument with people sticking their neck out for going Direct Fire with their missiles. (I'm only arguing against doing any nerfs to IDF versus the Current Live Server State, because of those ramifications.) If you look at previous posts I've done in regard to this whole matter, you'll find that I'm very much for giving Big Boosts to Direct Fire users. In fact, if you read my last post just a little more carefully, you may notice that I'm trying to point out a situation that PGI needs to avoid in order to properly give those Big Boosts to anyone going Direct Fire mode.

As for Boating of LRMs and such on the other hand, it should not be a massive nerf against someone who brought a Triple LRM15+Artemis... They spent out the tonnage to make their setup, and it should not be devalued in wholesale. In particular, a 3xAMS should not be able to fully stop 45 missiles all dropping in on a target at the same time, and a good small chunk of them should hit successfully. However, that said, I can as equally agree that Non-Boating LRM Setups (such as a 3xLRM5, mixed with a batch of other weaponry), should indeed be more resistant to being totally stopped by so little as a single AMS unit, as they should not be negated either. Otherwise, what would be the point of bringing that few missile tubes anyway?

Reno Blade, on 09 February 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

It's important to have some balance in place that rewards the higher risk of DF, otherwise you will just stay in cover and use IDF, because you will be save, right?

As noted above in several ways, all PGI needs to do is give really awesome boosts to Direct Fire usage. That will give the rewards where they are due, and I am absolutely all for that.

But in my mind, nerfing the IDF any further beyond the Current Live Server State is out of the question completely, because then what little weaponry that those with Medical Disabilities can even use will be rendered useless to them and take away the reason they have for sticking around. Discrimination because someone's body can not handle twitch-type smooth movements is something which I simply can not condone in any way, and have a hard stance of not putting up with. Any one of us who are in good condition now could easily end up Medically Disabled before tomorrow, and then where would we be? Should we also get shoved out the door, because someone didn't want to be reasonable and accommodate us? The answer to that is that we should not end up put in that position in the first place, ever. It's not fair, and equally not right either.

And yes, I'm aware that there are people out there who are physically "fighting fit" and have the ability to use IDF to an abusable extent. However, I also know they're a minority, and that hurting all the players who are not so good in order to shut those who are more powerful down is an absolute violation of fair game play. All that does is just leave the powerful up top, and makes the rest of us people into 'cannon fodder' for them. I would like to think we can agree that would simply not be right in any way, as it's not IDF itself that's the problem, but instead those who have been abusing it harshly. That said, I would definitely not want to create a hidden nerf that only affects players of high skill rating, unlike what someone else was thinking. Instead, there has to be some other way of creating a method by which someone of low skill rating can somehow catch the higher-skilled player in an off-guard state. I suspect it will ultimately end up linked to my future proposal for an Active Sensor Unit of some kind.

Reno Blade, on 09 February 2019 - 06:15 AM, said:

I like the idea of AMS being stronger against larger launchers and someone mentioned the idea of lower "ghost health" / "ghost spread" of larger volleys (boats).

Whatever adjustments that PGI does happen to make, we really don't want to create another Abuse Situation where the '9xLRM5 Archer ARC-5W' or '6xC-LRM5 Mad Dog MDD-A' become too capable & efficient versus someone who brought '3xLRM15+Artemis' (doesn't matter if Clan or not there, unlike the other two things) instead. Otherwise we'll just see boating of Small Launchers, and then AMS would be in a bad place again, with certain smaller LRMs being used excessively and other bigger ones being left on the junkpile. I think we can agree that missile weaponry should not get totally lopsided like that, right?

---

...and now pardon me while I scram again, because I don't get much time on weekends to actually get to the battlefields without it causing problems.

Also, thanks again for giving me an opportunity to share a bit more about my thoughts on the matter. I hope it gives you a better insight on my outlook about these Issues that currently surround Missile Systems such as LRMs? I want them balanced for far more people who play MWO, and not just only those with a fully-working body who have high skill ratings.

~Mr. D. V. "Regarding LRM-Related Issues, definitely give Direct Fire a Big Boost, but don't junk IDF at all." Devnull

[LTC Kilgore]

Chris Lowrey, on 05 February 2019 - 06:31 PM, said:

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.

How can you trust any of the test session data when hit registration and stat tracking are so bad in this game?

[Larsh]

Last night a group of us dove in to the PTS for 2 hours to try some things out. One thing we noticed is that the lock on reticle looses the target when you are changing from LOS to indirect LOS. Has anyone else noticed this?

Here is a overview, with a bug / glitch we discovered with the lock on reticle.

[Reno Blade]

Yes, Navid already created a post about this (with a video) and Chris replied:

Navid A1, on 06 February 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

Here is a video:

[Charles Sennet]

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.

While any nerf to LRM's in the current state is welcome, I'm concerned these changes will do little to address the problem. In Faction Play, several maps (i.e. Caustic, Polar, Alpine, Boreal Defense) have become which team can NARC-LURM the best. This involves sending 1-2 NARC-ing lights (IS's being mostly stealthed) and LURM boats hiding in the DZ pelting anything that dares to come out and try to shoot a direct fire weapon. No realistic amount of AMS or ECM or Radar Dep can stop the ensuing onslaught.

This type of gameplay is awful, not fun, and toxic long-term.

Most LURM boat pilots will probably see the new LOS-mechanics as a penalty since it impedes their ability to hit targets behind low cover. My prediction is that this will result in even more hiding than before.

The state of LRM's are a massive problem right now and I fear the only way to solve it would be:

• Get rid of NARC's entirely or at minimum in FP when mechs can be selected after the map is known.
  
• Make LRM's supplemental weapons only (restrict the number of tubes allowed on any single mech, maybe 20) so that boating them is not possible or;
  
• Require LRM's to have LOS to obtain any lock so that at least direct fire builds can at least shoot back at something mounting weapons with 100% accuracy and insane DPS at incredible ranges or;
  
• Some otherwise massive nerfs to LRM damage, heat, and accuracy.

Knowing most of these won't happen, at least ban NARC's from Faction Play. That would at least help mitigate the biggest outlier abuses of the weapon system.

Edited by Charles Sennet, 10 February 2019 - 03:31 PM.

[General Solo]

Charles Sennet, on 10 February 2019 - 02:42 PM, said:

..,......... at least ban NARC's from Faction Play. ..........

In Faction play can't really judge a weapon without taking the skill gap, no match maker into account

For faction PGI should narrow the skill gap before playing with other balances

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 10 February 2019 - 03:56 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Charles Sennet, on 10 February 2019 - 02:42 PM, said:

While any nerf to LRM's in the current state is welcome

I think your post lost all credibility there, and even if one reads the rest of it, it all comes down to LRM hating and crying about lurmers not playing the way you want them to.

Here's a suggestion - grow up.

[Toxicresidue]

Charles Sennet, on 10 February 2019 - 02:42 PM, said:

While any nerf to LRM's in the current state is welcome, I'm concerned these changes will do little to address the problem. In Faction Play, several maps (i.e. Caustic, Polar, Alpine, Boreal Defense) have become which team can NARC-LURM the best. This involves sending 1-2 NARC-ing lights (IS's being mostly stealthed) and LURM boats hiding in the DZ pelting anything that dares to come out and try to shoot a direct fire weapon. No realistic amount of AMS or ECM or Radar Dep can stop the ensuing onslaught.

This type of gameplay is awful, not fun, and toxic long-term.

Most LURM boat pilots will probably see the new LOS-mechanics as a penalty since it impedes their ability to hit targets behind low cover. My prediction is that this will result in even more hiding than before.

The state of LRM's are a massive problem right now and I fear the only way to solve it would be:

• Get rid of NARC's entirely or at minimum in FP when mechs can be selected after the map is known.
  
• Make LRM's supplemental weapons only (restrict the number of tubes allowed on any single mech, maybe 20) so that boating them is not possible or;
  
• Require LRM's to have LOS to obtain any lock so that at least direct fire builds can at least shoot back at something mounting weapons with 100% accuracy and insane DPS at incredible ranges or;
  
• Some otherwise massive nerfs to LRM damage, heat, and accuracy.

Knowing most of these won't happen, at least ban NARC's from Faction Play. That would at least help mitigate the biggest outlier abuses of the weapon system.

well the way things are going you'll get to play by yourself or with 1 other person with the new mw5, cuz PGI is killing this game

[ExoForce]

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>

Interesting.

[Curccu]

ExoForce, on 11 February 2019 - 04:53 AM, said:

[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]

Interesting.

And you just had to quote that ~300 rows long, 2500 words long post WITHOUT spoiler tags just to say "Interesting."... OK.

[GaelicWolf]

D V Devnull, on 09 February 2019 - 05:22 AM, said:

......Like, really, STOP trashing the support-using Teammates already, and STOP trashing the size of the Player Base in the process! Even further, STOP trying to make any weapon type you don't like into a 'Noob Trap' that doesn't work. While we're at it, STOP trashing all the Newbies who come in when they're still trying to learn to play, which means they are also simply NOT able to play the way you instantly want of them from their first Match! If people don't get to be comfortable with a game first (that includes the Medically Disabled), and develop their own skills that they feel proud of, then they will never stick around, which also means the Player Base will stagnate or shrink, instead of growing. Growth is the atmosphere we should foster. The atmospheres of shrinkage, stagnation, toxicity, hatred, and such suckage of the like are all things that should meet their death, so that MWO can live far into the future.

~Mr. D. V. "So many things glare at me from PTS Version 2 that it was NEVER funny." Devnull

Best point in this whole damn thread