47 replies to this topic

[InnerSphereNews]

Greetings MechWarriors!

We will be conducting one final round of PTS testing to test some minor alterations to some balance values.

Indirect Lock-On Changes:

• The scaling on indirect long-range lock-on time has been reduced. The scaling on both short and mid-range has remained as it is.

Design Notes: We received feedback that the scaling at extreme ranges was too aggressively tuned in PTS 2.0, so we will throw this change up there to be tested for PTS 2.1.

LRM Changes:

* All previous values mentioned refer to PTS 2.0 tuning and not the live client.

LRM 5

• Indirect Spread reduced to 4.2 (from 5.04)
• LOS Spread reduced to 3.2 (from 4.2)

LRM 10

• Indirect Spread reduced to 4.2 (from 5.04)
• LOS Spread reduced to 3.2 (from 4.2)

LRM 15

• Indirect Spread reduced to 5.2 (from 5.6)
• LOS Spread reduced to 4.2 (from 5.2)

LRM 20

• Indirect Spread reduced to 5.2 (from 5.6)
• LOS Spread reduced to 4.2 (from 5.2)

Clan LRM 5

• Indirect Spread reduced to 4.55 (from 5.46)
• LOS Spread reduced to 3.55 (from 4.55)

Clan LRM 10

• Indirect Spread reduced to 4.55 (from 5.46)
• LOS Spread reduced to 3.55 (from 4.55)

Clan LRM 15

• Indirect Spread reduced to 5.55 (from 6.66)
• LOS Spread reduced to 4.55 (from 5.55)

Clan LRM 20

• Indirect Spread reduced to 5.55 (from 6.66)
• LOS Spread reduced to 4.55 (from 5.55)

Design Notes: With reductions in indirect efficiency already coming from the reduced spread compared to LOS, the increases in lock-on time, as well as current concerns of missile performance in direct fire situations, we are going to shift the values from previous testing away from baseline reductions in efficiency to instead restore indirect missile efficiency to what it currently is tuned to on live, and then provide direct line of fire buffs. As with all PTS sessions, these values are purely for testing purposes, and are not final tuning values. So feel free to provide feedback on these test values in the PTS forums.

Known Issue:

• Locking onto a target trough direct line of sight and then falling back into cover will often incorrectly display the lock-on reticle as still attempting to acquire a lock.
• This is currently only a display bug, the lock in these cases is not lost.

Design notes: While this was reported as of the last test and we have a solution currently being tested internally, this fix did not make the final cutoff time for this final PTS round. As the resources required to produce the PTS builds must now move on to focus on the upcoming February Patch release.

While this is unfortunate, we still want to encourage those who wish to test the various feature changes introduced in PTS 2.0 to continue to test and provide feedback with these updated values. We want to thank all of those that have taken the time to continue to test this PTS series. 

[C337Skymaster]

New LRM idea for much later down the road, but which I've felt should have been a "thing" right along:

We should be able to fire LRMs using the Battlegrid, just designating a point for the LRMs to land, and having them fire and turn in that direction. This allows an LRM boat to provide indirect fire support on a location where enemies are known to be hiding.

Counters to keep this from being super OP:
- Spread at 20 or 30 (which simultaneously minimizes the amount of damage taken by any one component, and makes it easier to get a hit on something without knowing where the enemy is down to the meter).
- Having the battlegrid open dramatically reduces the LRM boat's situational awareness, and makes them easier to attack and kill.

[eminus]

still a ghost town everytime I log in the PTR

[The6thMessenger]

If there's hardly mechanical changes, I don't see the point of trying it out. Spread and thereby damage efficiency to LRMs is easily tweaked anyways.


I still stand by the Range-Dependent Lock-Speed to be integrated as DF Bonus than IDF penalty.

[process]

Sigh, 0/3 getting matches over this and the last two PTS.

[Akillius]

One final!!!!!!!!!!
We were all waiting for you to fix the serious bugs pointed out within the first hour of last PTS!

Also if you want more people participating add a reward like the earlier PTS testing.
Maybe make it for lurm damage.
Another for ecm or ams help.
More rewards for playing and posting a report on forums
just a few ideas, etc.

[AlphaPiAlpha]

Wait, you put lrms back to normal for indirect fire and buff LOS fire? Most OP **** I have ever heard for a lock on weapon in a game. Welcome to LRMWARRIOR ONLINE!

[D V Devnull]

<*sees thread...*>
<*stops by to check discussion...*>
<*checks MWO Portal...*>
<*finds PTS Patch is needed...*>
<*doesn't find Download Link on the Website, again*>

Okay... Another day, another failure... Something else needs my attention right this second, so I'll track it down in a rather short bit... *groan*

I'll be there soon, folks... You'll have the details shortly... It's only a matter of time now... If someone else wants to track it down before I do, then by all means... be my guest...

~D. V. "Where's the PTS Patch Download Link when one NEEDS it?!?!?" Devnull

[TheHurp]

will there be a longer cooldown and more heat generated then?

[General Solo]

He bites he's lower lip and thinks:

Occums razor suggests that if people dont come to test maybe test not that important compared to others things

Like maybe match maker

Sorry for derail, thoughts, drinks, etc, etc

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 11 February 2019 - 11:40 PM.

[Vellron2005]

InnerSphereNews, on 11 February 2019 - 04:59 PM, said:

Design Notes: With reductions in indirect efficiency already coming from the reduced spread compared to LOS, the increases in lock-on time, as well as current concerns of missile performance in direct fire situations, we are going to shift the values from previous testing away from baseline reductions in efficiency to instead restore indirect missile efficiency to what it currently is tuned to on live, and then provide direct line of fire buffs. As with all PTS sessions, these values are purely for testing purposes, and are not final tuning values. So feel free to provide feedback on these test values in the PTS forums.

Lemme get this str8..

You are gonna keep the IDF LRMs as they are on live now, and provide buffs for LOS LRMs (and lower arc)?

This is satisfactory..

Personally, I would be very happy with just the lower arc in LOS, but I understand that some people are really pushing for more lurmers being in LOS rather than IDF, so you want to cater to them too..

I don't think my playstyle will change at all regardless.

I will always prefer IDF to LOS..

OZHomerOZ, on 11 February 2019 - 11:38 PM, said:

He bites he's lower lip and thinks:

Occums razor suggests that if people dont come to test maybe test not that important compared to others things

Like maybe match maker

Sorry for derail, thoughts, drinks, etc, etc

This is for me one of the most imporant PTS tests ever... yet I am not participating at all because I can't update the friggin portal... :/

P.S.

Is there ANY chance we could get to lock a target, fire LRMs, then sadly, lose the lock, and re-lock to a DIFFERENT target with LRMs in-flight, and have them hit that target instead?

Or, alternatively, fire LRMs without lock, and then get lock with the missiles in-flight and have them hit the locked target?

Edited by Vellron2005, 12 February 2019 - 12:52 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Vellron2005, on 12 February 2019 - 12:22 AM, said:

Lemme get this str8..

You are gonna keep the IDF LRMs as they are on live now, and provide buffs for LOS LRMs (and lower arc)?

This is satisfactory..

Personally, I would be very happy with just the lower arc in LOS, but I understand that some people are really pushing for more lurmers being in LOS rather than IDF, so you want to cater to them too..

I don't think my playstyle will change at all regardless.

I will always prefer IDF to LOS..



This is for me one of the most imporant PTS tests ever... yet I am not participating at all because I can't update the friggin portal... :/

P.S.

Is there ANY chance we could get to lock a target, fire LRMs, then sadly, lose the lock, and re-lock to a DIFFERENT target with LRMs in-flight, and have them hit that target instead?

Or, alternatively, fire LRMs without lock, and then get lock with the missiles in-flight and have them hit the locked target?

I guess we might get something in the middle, where there is a "slight" nerf for IDF.
Currently the only "nerf" to IDF on PTS2.1 is the longer lock time for your long range.

I would love to see missiles still aim for the last target after losing the lock, just not with full tracking strength.
THis would mean slow targets could still be hit with a good confidence, but very agile mechs need more aiming.

Otherwise, each launcher needs a separate lock that is USED-UP when fired, but the missiles do not need to keep locked.
This just doesnt work with multiple launchers, as we have only one lock reticule now. too bad.

[L1f3H4ck]

InnerSphereNews, on 11 February 2019 - 04:59 PM, said:

Known Issue:

• Locking onto a target trough direct line of sight and then falling back into cover will often incorrectly display the lock-on reticle as still attempting to acquire a lock.
  
• This is currently only visual VISUAL VISUAL, the lock in these cases is not lost.

Design notes: While this was reported as of the last test and we have a solution currently being tested internally, this fix did not make the final cutoff time for this final PTS round. As the resources required to produce the PTS builds must now move on to focus on the upcoming February Patch release.



While this is unfortunate, we still want to encourage those who wish to test the various feature changes introduced in PTS 2.0 to continue to test and provide feedback with these updated values. We want to thank all of those that have taken the time to continue to test this PTS series.

There! are! FOUR LIGHTS!!!

[Racerxintegra2k]

When they patched the IDF and LOS lrms by accident one patch, i absolutely hated the mechanic. it seems when i had LOS i still wanted to lob my missiles over terrain and couldn't was so annoying.A toggle would be best.

[Mechwarrior 37]

That is great!

NOW, do you have any hints on how to get a match in the PTS? Is it 4 on 4 and we need to group first?

You can clear this up in 30 seconds.

And are you testing PTS1 or PTS2?

Edited by Mechwarrior 37, 12 February 2019 - 05:12 AM.

[Acersecomic]

LRMS DO NOT NEED BUFFS! It needs FKIN NERFS! LRMs are a toxic element of the game, an extremely annoying hammer banging on your head over and over again that barely any cover actually hides you from!

This isn't even about LRM effectiveness but how fkin annoying the weapon is!
ANNOYING! BAD FOR GAMEPLAY! It is infuriating to get LURMed till death do you apart!
BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

PGI, stick to being nice to people, we don't have much of that in the professional gaming industry, but stay away from the gameplay part of the game development.

Edited by Acersecomic, 12 February 2019 - 05:51 AM.

[MechTech Dragoon]

IDF lrms should not be as effective as they are on live without narc or tag support.
Lock on time increase wont change the fact that WHEN they start dropping on you, its just too much damage too fast that you cant do anything about.

Also the last round of PTS was pretty well dead. Goes allot better when you offer people cookies for participating.

[thievingmagpi]

no one drops in PTS because no one cares about minor incremental lrm changes. no one cares at all if spread is 3.6 or 3.8.

lrms are fundamentally bad for gameplay. it's not an issue of tweaking some numbers here and there the way it is for the rest of the mechanics. spending any amount of effort on this is a waste of time as long as the pgi belief is "lrms are a good thing". pts might be interesting if there was a demonstrable amount of care and vision with regards to the end result, or if well-received pts changes from past were actually adopted instead of continually binned.

[Nomad One]

The new spread values are much more rewarding for the risks and requirements for the two different firing modes.

Indirect taking roughly 4 seconds at 1000 meters to achieve a lock against a non-NARC/ TAG influenced target means you will rarely get the chance to fire at the LRMs maximum range, especially against ECM protected opponents. At 750 meters, which is the more common indirect fire backline position, it takes a bit over 3 seconds to acquire an indirect lock. At 500 meters, it's roughly the same 2 seconds as it is on live servers. Granted this was on a 'mech with +43% more sensor range through skill tree and an active probe.

Although the new indirect lock-time increase is still confusing, as players lack a "sensor range" statistic in the mech lab to determine how far they'll be able to see and calculate where they'll be getting the maximum lock time increase penalty.

The new benefits to direct fire gives standard LRMs tactical flexibility, while also allowing Artemis upgraded LRMs to really put the hurt on targets... provided the target stays in line of sight for the flight duration of the missiles.

The PTS LRMs are honestly in a rather good spot.

Edited by Nomad One, 12 February 2019 - 10:27 AM.

[Nightbird]

I did share that LRM cockpit blinding is what makes LRMs super annoying, but PGI just said that is the intended role/feature of LRMs.... so....nerf them all to hell I say!