Jump to content

Long Range Missile Updates Pts Final Results And Change List


120 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 05:07 PM

I am here to announce the results of the recent Long Range Missile Updates PTS series and provide a preview into how we will tune this feature for release. We want to start by thanking all who took the time to participate and provide feedback over the various testing sessions. As said in the recent road map, these changes will be coming in with the March Patch.

In order to consolidate the various talking points, I will be providing a short summary of the results from the various PTS’s followed by our plans moving forward with the final release.

PTS Summary

We want to briefly give a short summary of results from the various PTS testing sessions. We will go over the final release values in the "Final Results" section below. Keep in mind that as a brief summary, these will focus more on global results, and not focus on any individual system, 'Mech, or weapon setting.

PTS 1.0

What was tested:
  • Introduction of the new LOS missile arc behavior.
  • Extensive smoke test of the arc change system.
  • Balance test focusing on the give and take between LOS and Indirect Fire accounting for the new Arc Behavior.
  • Balance test for increased Heat Scale on LRM systems.
When it came to smoke testing the new LOS arc behavior, while most remained positive about the overall 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.

Balance testing saw a more mixed amount of reactions. While most were positive as to the overall direction taken, there were a number of comments that the tuning, and just the change of the trajectory itself was not sufficient enough to distinguish firing the weapon through LOS fire then through indirect fire.

After reviewing the feedback and results, we found that while globally (tested against all targets of all different shapes, sizes, and target speeds,) the per-volley missile accuracy is improved with direct LOS arc over the indirect arc, but often, the results from just the LOS arc trajectory alone was too subtle to really feel like it is a net positive. With some targets being better to target indirectly then directly. These results to us made the change too subtle and dependent on target type in order to effectively consider it a net positive on its own.

Other feedback touch points included:
  • With a shallower trajectory and the reduction of being able to arc over some cover, the tested tuning does not put direct fire LRMs in a spot that allows them to compete with more contemporary direct fire weapons.
  • With a shallower, faster missile volley, AMS’ overall effectiveness was reduced in a detrimental way.
  • With Nerfs to indirect fire, TAG and NARC systems where detrimentally affected. Additionally, there was consistent feedback that as TAG and NARC are pieces of equipment made to support indirect fire, any nerf to the core system should roll over into the more specialized equipment.
PTS 2.0

What was tested:
  • Improved the Direct to Indirect Arc behavior correcting bugs found in PTS 1.0
  • An overhaul of the Lock-on Weapon system, differentiating locks from direct LOS and Indirect LOS.
  • New behavior that allows for independent spread values to be assigned for Direct vs. Indirect shots.
  • AMS missile tuning tuned to provide independent health values to every individual missile system.
  • TAG and NARC receiving feature additions that played into the expansion of the Weapon Lock-on and Direct to indirect spread behavior changes.
  • Smoke testing of all feature changes described above.
  • Further balance testing to account for the above feature changes.
  • Increased Heat for Clan LRM Launchers.
With the core work testing direct vs. indirect systems done in PTS 1.0, we wanted to further flesh out the direct vs. indirect systems within the game so we could better tune behavior in both direct and indirect fire scenarios. While we received a lot of positive feedback on the core feature changes presented in the test, a UI animation bug revolving around the new lock-on system overhaul feature unfortunately complicated the testing process, and so we had very limited on-site testing. There was a handful of testing that did still occur and we received feedback that while we were on the right path, there was still room for further tuning.

While pushing us in the right direction, the tuning presented was still tested as too much of a direct nerf to the overall LRM system. With heavy changes that affected indirect fire meaning that it only preformed at a similar level to what it does on live now only when it was in direct fire situations, while everything else was a net nerf unless you had close TAG / NARC support. And when forced into direct fire situations, it still did not perform at a level that put it in favorable footing against alternative direct fire weapons. This is feedback that we attempted to address with the subsequent PTS 2.1

PTS 2.1

What was tested:
  • Tuning to the individual values of both the new Direct / Indirect lock-on systems, and LRM weapon tuning.
While small in scope, we wanted to test against the feedback presented in PTS 2.0. Although those that tested said that the changes to LRMs themselves where satisfactory to keep their performance still potent, we did receive just as much feedback that the changes themselves seemed to have pushed LRMS to the point where there was substantial role overlap with alternative missile weapon systems. With LRM’s seeming like a direct upgrades over MRM’s and ATM’s due to their direct fire potency, but with the utility to still be highly effective in indirect fire situations. Both of these viewpoints were taken into consideration when it came to the final systems tuning.

Incoming Changes to Live:

With feedback pointing to an overall positive outlook on every system tested through the PTS series, we have decided to move forward with introducing all of the corresponding systems tested through this PTS series into the live game. Some features we will be keeping identical tuning tested through the PTS series. As for others, we will be making alterations in order to address certain feedback points brought up through testing. Below is a breakdown of the changes that will be coming with the March Patch.

Separate LOS and Indirect Fire Arc's For LRMs:

This feature will come in unchanged from that which was tested in PTS 2.1.

Weapon Lock-On System Overhaul:

The Lock-On System Overhaul will be brought into the game as it was tested in PTS 2.1. But like all other systems introduced in our monthly patches, we will be monitoring the impact that this individual tuning produces in the live game, and may make further changes in the proceeding months as we monitor how the changes settle in the overall game.

While we could not address a reported UI bug that came with this feature during the PTS series, a fix has been confirmed internally and will be present with the final release of this feature change.

Increased Missile Volley Spread for Shots Made Indirectly:

This feature change will come in with all of the other changes, but the exact values will be slightly different from what was tested on the PTS server. We will elaborate more on this in the Equipment Tuning section below.

UI Changes:

With the above features being finalized we will be introducing the following UI improvements with the final patch release:
  • LRM and ATM Mechlab tool tips will now have entries for both direct and indirect weapon spread.
  • LRM Mechlab tool tip will now have entries for both direct and indirect weapon velocity.
  • While weapon velocity is not altered by any of these changes, the tool tip velocity entries will now better account for the missile travel time against the two different LRM arcs.
  • Mechlab Mech Stats will now display the ‘Mech’s current sensor range.
Missile Projectile Health vs. AMS:

During a number of testing sessions, the new functionality worked to make AMS more effective against larger missile volleys, without being as punishing against smaller volleys. But one important bit of feedback we received through testing was that certain ‘Mechs that combined skill tree assignments, Native ‘Mech quirks, and high number of AMS slots resulted in a massive performance swing that made them a bit too effective at completely shutting down missile play when accounting for these incoming changes. Considering that these changes aim to improve the baseline system, we have decided that it is time to scale down / phase out a number of AMS based quirks to ensure that the introduction of this system does not compound on existing quirks to shut down all missile play. We will be keeping or shifting a number of AMS based quirks on select ‘Mechs that do supply an AMS support niche within the overall line up. But their tuning will account for the increased performance in the baseline equipment. Details on this point will be provided with the March Patch Notes.

The final missile health settings will be identical to what was tested on PTS 2.1 for LRM’s and ATM’s, but the system has been expanded to now include all missile based systems for its final release. While AMS will still be primarily effective against indirect fired LRMs and ATMs, the new changes will see AMS performance against other missile type weapons greatly improve over its present tuning. There will also be a change to the baseline AMS systems that we will elaborate on in the Equipment Tuning section below.

Equipment Tuning:

With all of the above taken into account, here are the final changes coming with the March patch:

LRM:
  • LRM 5:
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 4.7 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 3.7 (from 4.55)
    • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 5 (from 4)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
  • LRM 10
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 4.7 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 3.7 from (4.55)
    • Minimum Heat Penalty increased to 4 (from 3)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
  • LRM 15
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.7 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 4.7 (from 5.2)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
  • LRM 20
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.7 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 4.7 (from 5.2)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4
  • Clan LRM 5
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.05 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 4.05 (4.55)
    • Heat increased to 2.4 (from 2.25)
    • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 5 (from 4)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
  • Clan LRM 10
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.05 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 5.05 (from 4.55)
    • Heat increased to 4 (from 3.7)
    • Minimum Heat Penalty Increased to 4 (from 3)
  • Clan LRM 15
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 6.05 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 5.05 (5.55)
    • Heat increased to 5 (from 4.65)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
  • Clan LRM 20
    • Velocity increased to 210 (from 190)
    • Indirect Spread set to 6.05 (New)
    • LOS Spread set to 5.05 (from 5.55)
    • Heat increased to 6 (from 5.6)
    • Heat Penalty increased to 3.4 (from 2.8)
Design Notes: For the initial roll out of these changes, we are inclined to agree with the feedback received during PTS 2.1 that the tuning presented in PTS 2.1 gave a bit too much overlap when it came to other missile systems. Because of this, when it comes to the final spread values, we will be splitting the difference between the values present on PTS 2.0 and PTS 2.1 in order to allow the more specialized missile systems to have higher focused damage potential while in their effective range. This will mean that the final direct fire spread of LRM’s will see a 10% buff over the live value, but indirect LRMs will see a 10% nerf over the live value.

But to counterbalance this, we will be providing LRM’s with a 10% velocity boost over the tested PTS values. Across the missile line up, we want LRMs to be the premier “Long Range” option for Missile Hardpoint Weapon systems. And with the overhaul to the Weapon Lock-On system greatly affecting an LRM user’s ability to get indirect locks at long range, we want to ensure that pro-active LRM users that go out and directly engage with the weapon can better compete at longer ranges when using the weapon in direct fire scenarios compared to alternative missile systems.

While we have decided to err on the conservative side of final value tuning regarding spread values, we will be closely monitoring LRMs overall performance come release. And we are not opposed to potentially pushing the spread values closer to the PTS 2.1 values if we feel that LRMs still need a bit more potency and adjusting this value would not cause significant role overlap with other missile systems. Beyond the changes to Velocity and Spread, the heat changes will be implemented into the live version using the values tested on PTS 2.1.

ATM:
  • ATM 3
    • Velocity increased to 242 (from 220)
    • Indirect Spread set to 3.9 (New)
  • ATM 6
    • Velocity increased to 242 (from 220)
    • Indirect Spread set to 4.9 (New)
  • ATM 9
    • Velocity increased to 242 (from 220)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.5 (New)
  • ATM 12
    • Velocity increased to 242 (from 220)
    • Indirect Spread set to 5.5 (New)
Design Notes: We are carrying over the velocity increase from LRM’s over into ATMs. The indirect spread values have also been altered from their PTS 2.0 values to reflect the softer reduction in indirect spread that the final LRM tuning was set to.

AMS:
  • AMS (Both Clan and Inner Sphere)
    • Range increased to 190 (from 165)
    • Max Range increased to 275 (from 250)
  • Laser AMS (Both Clan and Inner Sphere)
    • Range increased to 190 (from 165)
    • Max Range increased to 275 (from 250)
Design Notes: In order to account for the increased LRM velocity, we are increasing the overall AMS system range in order to produce consistent baseline results to what the AMS system was tuned for in PTS 2.1. Final missile health tuning has been set to account for these increased range values.

NARC and TAG:

NARC and TAG tuning will remain identical to what was tested on PTS 2.1. But due to the new way that NARC and TAG interact with the missile systems, this does mean that the net effect of the change will be different to what was tested through the PTS series.

Rather than the raw buffs that PTS 2.1 tested, or the consistent performance with live that PTS 2.0 tested, Like the LRMs, the final tuning has split the difference between the PTS versions. TAG and NARC will produce an extra 10% spread buff for indirect fire LRMs over their current performance on live. In addition to all other behavior changes that have been tested in PTS 2.0 and 2.1.

In Conclusion:

We would like to extend out a huge thank you to all of the community members who took the time to extensively test and provided feedback on the various PTS. We have taken into consideration all options and feedback and have prioritized these changes to push MWO in a direction that will satisfy as many players as possible. These changes won't make everyone happy and we understand that, but the changes do help us meet our internal goals as well as incorporating as much community feedback as possible. Hopefully we have reached a happy medium. We will be continuing to work hard to monitor the impacts of these changes and will continue to look into ways of further improving the overall gameplay experience.

Thank you for your input and contributions.

#2 NUMBERZero1032

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 145 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:02 PM

STOP BUFFING LRM VELOCITY, NOBODY ASKED FOR THIS. STOP BUFFING LRM'S WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY WORK.

LRM velocity isn't what you think it is. The LRM velocity stats is a factor in an equation to calculate actual velocity.

Picture by Navid
Posted Image

#3 Tranderas

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 48 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:04 PM

Stop increasing LRM velocity. You made them awful to play against when you did it the first time and this will only compound the problem AGAIN. This harshly punishes players who don't have AMS when playing against a weapon system that's already atrociously unfun to have to fight. Stop, Chris. Please, for the love of the game, STOP.

#4 NUMBERZero1032

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 145 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:06 PM

The buff will make ATM's and LRM's actual velocity 387 m/s and 336 m/s respectively.

#5 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:09 PM

show me where the direct fire weapon hurt you

#6 Ahh Screw it - WATCH THIS

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 117 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:10 PM

LOL
O
L

You can't make this **** up.

Petition to change name to "Missile Command Online"

#7 Yondu Udonta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pirate
  • The Pirate
  • 539 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:12 PM

LRMs another velocity buff? We playing LRMwarrior now? How the **** are you guys continuing to reward dumb gameplay by consistently buffing dumb weapon systems? Literally ZERO effort for maximum DMG numbers. Just gonna watch the game die now aight?

#8 IronEleven

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 84 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:14 PM

Welp, glad I didn't preorder MW5. It looked like you were actually listening for a while there.

Edited by IronEleven, 27 February 2019 - 07:32 PM.


#9 roboPrancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bushido
  • The Bushido
  • 269 posts
  • LocationEh?

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:15 PM

Can we at least get a AC20 velocity buff to go with the lrm buff?

#10 LeopardEnthusiast

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:15 PM

I had low expectations and this still managed to disappoint me. Well done!

#11 NUMBERZero1032

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 145 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:16 PM

Quad AMS Stalker 5S pls

#12 Metachanic

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 4
  • Mercenary Rank 4
  • 44 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:18 PM

I implore you to consider bringing the changes to live without buffing ATM or LRM velocity. The PTS2.1 changes are already going to upset the apple cart enormously. Velocity is already quite high, faster than incoming missile warnings in quite a few cases. ATMs are ridiculously powerful as-is, and the velocity buff is wholly unnecessary, especially without further live testing of the proposed changes.

#13 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:18 PM

4th buff to lrms in a row.

#14 Detergent II

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Fearless
  • The Fearless
  • 26 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:22 PM

Can't wait for the 4 AMS Corsair to come out for C-bills 5 months after it's impossible to get the 12 man of them in FP needed to block a single Supernova-A

Posted Image

View PostroboPrancer, on 27 February 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:

Can we at least get a AC20 velocity buff to go with the lrm buff?

AND GET RID OF THE GHOST HEAT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

#15 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:23 PM

They did reduce the ghost heat





























...on lrms








Posted Image

Edited by thievingmagpi, 27 February 2019 - 07:23 PM.


#16 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,883 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:26 PM

View PostNUMBERZero1032, on 27 February 2019 - 07:06 PM, said:

The buff will make ATM's and LRM's actual velocity 387 m/s and 336 m/s respectively.


What if I reminded you about the 15% velocity increase you can get from skill tree on top?

Posted Image

#17 theplayerx4734

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 31 posts

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:27 PM

Welp guess im not playing until 4 AMS corsair comes out for cbills because there is no way im spending money on this after 4 LRM buffs........... welp hopefully a certain balance master has fun in their LRM Hellspawn.

#18 Marjan Lion

    Rookie

  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9 posts
  • LocationCalgary, AB

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:28 PM

Well played, boys. Well played.

Do us all a favour and don't bother with a World Championship tournament this year. There's no room for actual skill in MWO anymore. Posted Image

#ThanksChris

Edited by Marjan Lion, 27 February 2019 - 07:30 PM.


#19 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 25,759 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:37 PM

If you're gonna buff Lurms without getting rid of the autoaim mechanic can you guys at least let AMS and LAMS benefit from certain weapon quirks?

AMS: Ballistic Range, Magazine Capacity

LAMS: Energy Range, Energy Heat

Edited by FupDup, 27 February 2019 - 08:04 PM.


#20 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,252 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 27 February 2019 - 07:39 PM

Spread buff seems nice. And the 10% spread bonus for NARC and TAG use is swell. But you ALREADY somewhat buffed velocity by adding a lower-trajectory. The Velocity Buff is just gratuitous, and frankly stupid at this point. Lurmageddon it is.

Likewise, the IDF Range Penalty hasn't been transformed to DF Range Bonus -- WTF? Sure IDF shouldn't be that powerful, but it shouldn't be that stupidly hard to use. You already have a smaller Lock-Cone, either lose the small lock-cone or increase lock-speed.

IDF is already penalized by the fact that it has to use the higher-arc and larger spread, it doesn't need any more nerf like increasing the Lock-Time with range. Longer time-to-target alone is already a factor in prompting use to closer distances, it doesn't need any more nerf with that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 27 February 2019 - 07:45 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users