274 replies to this topic

[The pessimistic optimist]

The6thMessenger, on 05 March 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

I honestly don't see much difference in the short-range use of ATMs with 242m/s (1.1157s time-to-target), because at 220m/s (1.2277s time-to-target), it's already fast and at short range the ATMs already hit quite immediately.

It's the mid-range to long-range use of the ATMs that were affected most by the velocity buff, and considering the LRM's overall tweak (though velocity-buff is stupid), it's probably right that they buffed the ATMs to be competitive against LRMs at mid-range because even if right now ATMs is the lesser choice for mid-range vs LRMs (but again the velocity buff is stupid to begin with).

No reason to single the ATMs out, ATMs being buffed is simply just a logical approach, from stupid choices.

Is not the point of the ATM to close range to do massive damage and yea really only use ATMs at mid to long if yea really have to.

Edited by SirSmokes, 05 March 2019 - 04:46 PM.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 05 March 2019 - 04:26 PM, said:

Well, we can't just check the entire population either, that's why in statistics we simply take a representative sample.

Aside from differences in launchers, I don't know any special attributes from Steam users that would skew results.

Audience, age of the launcher, preference of launcher type... Personally. If I can get a game on a standalone launcher, I prefer that over the Steam version, simply because I don't like having Steam running in the background when I don't need it to. I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

I'm just pointing out the difference in potential numbers. Saw someone trying to say that the whole population number was the Steam Player Data, when that isn't the whole of the player population.

I would also mention, it's newer on Steam than the stand alone launcher. I tend to find Steam users are more likely to jump into a game and then drop the game. Also being a "newer release" on Steam means it's grabbed more new players, rather than those of us who are more established.

Appogee, on 05 March 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

Understood. But it's also a fair assumption that the trend of declining Steam players would be indicative of a trend in declining portal players. (PGI doesn't provide data on portal player numbers.)


There are at least as many threads/people complaining about LRM spam making the game less enjoyable.

I am not going to deny the possibility. I'm mostly just wanting it known that the Steam data isn't including "all the players". I am curious what differences there may be between the two sets of data. Is the portal more often used? Are portal players more likely to continue playing the game? It's an interesting thought, though we are unlikely to actually see the data it seems.


There are threads complaining about everything. Most of the LRM complainers I come across complain about LRMs, yet take no AMS, ECM, stand out in the open, and have far more problems than LRMs. It's like people complaining about PPCs hitting them and turning their ECM off, and being able to knock an ECM unit offline indefinitely with enough steady hits from PPCs, making them vulnerable to LRMs. (Yes, that was an actual argument when PPCs gained the ability to disable ECM for 5 seconds when it hits an ECM mech.) I'm sorry, but if you are being hit by PPCs every 5 seconds... you have larger concerns than incoming LRMs... (PS: AMS can shoot down 15 missiles fairly easy with good positioning, 8 missiles as an average shot down for missiles headed right at you. Can shoot down 20+ missiles with perfect positioning and skills. That's just with a single AMS, and seen as only a single mech (to my knowledge) can't take AMS (Cicada X5), a whole team can easily make LRMs fairly unimportant if they all took one.)

But, a lot of people have asked for a difference between direct and indirect fired LRMs. This was in part due to how LRMs operate in lore and in TT as it was to reward "better game play with LRM use". I think it's an interesting concept, and is suppose to make direct fired LRMs more rewarding, especially in comparison to people's common complaints about hiding indirect fired LRMs "ruining their game".

[The pessimistic optimist]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 04:58 PM, said:

Audience, age of the launcher, preference of launcher type... Personally. If I can get a game on a standalone launcher, I prefer that over the Steam version, simply because I don't like having Steam running in the background when I don't need it to. I'm sure I'm not alone on that.

I'm just pointing out the difference in potential numbers. Saw someone trying to say that the whole population number was the Steam Player Data, when that isn't the whole of the player population.

I would also mention, it's newer on Steam than the stand alone launcher. I tend to find Steam users are more likely to jump into a game and then drop the game. Also being a "newer release" on Steam means it's grabbed more new players, rather than those of us who are more established.



I am not going to deny the possibility. I'm mostly just wanting it known that the Steam data isn't including "all the players". I am curious what differences there may be between the two sets of data. Is the portal more often used? Are portal players more likely to continue playing the game? It's an interesting thought, though we are unlikely to actually see the data it seems.


There are threads complaining about everything. Most of the LRM complainers I come across complain about LRMs, yet take no AMS, ECM, stand out in the open, and have far more problems than LRMs. It's like people complaining about PPCs hitting them and turning their ECM off, and being able to knock an ECM unit offline indefinitely with enough steady hits from PPCs, making them vulnerable to LRMs. (Yes, that was an actual argument when PPCs gained the ability to disable ECM for 5 seconds when it hits an ECM mech.) I'm sorry, but if you are being hit by PPCs every 5 seconds... you have larger concerns than incoming LRMs... (PS: AMS can shoot down 15 missiles fairly easy with good positioning, 8 missiles as an average shot down for missiles headed right at you. Can shoot down 20+ missiles with perfect positioning and skills. That's just with a single AMS, and seen as only a single mech (to my knowledge) can't take AMS (Cicada X5), a whole team can easily make LRMs fairly unimportant if they all took one.)

But, a lot of people have asked for a difference between direct and indirect fired LRMs. This was in part due to how LRMs operate in lore and in TT as it was to reward "better game play with LRM use". I think it's an interesting concept, and is suppose to make direct fired LRMs more rewarding, especially in comparison to people's common complaints about hiding indirect fired LRMs "ruining their game".

Some of the people complaining about LRM are well
note I said some of the people;)

Edited by SirSmokes, 05 March 2019 - 05:02 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

SirSmokes, on 05 March 2019 - 04:44 PM, said:

Is not the point of the ATM to close range to do massive damage and yea really only use ATMs at mid to long if yea really have to.

ATMs do a hell lot more heat than LRMs, so using them in mid-range is quite simply a waste of heat. It's only advantage over LRMs is that it does borderline-OP damage short-range, but other than that it's even weaker than LRMs.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 05 March 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

velocity buff

I thought it was important to note that direct fired LRMs actually didn't receive a "velocity buff" per say, as it was more so less distance was traveled by going in a straight line rather than a curved line. It's labeled as a velocity buff due to how the missile coding it, more than the missiles actually "moving faster". The code for missiles doesn't consider velocity, but rather only time to get to a destination. LRMs actually, by coding, don't have velocity speeds but instead uses something else to get on target within a time frame. This was to account for it's arc of fire. With the flatter path, the "time to get there" had to be adjusted.

Think of it as shooting an arrow. If you shoot an arrow in a high curve to land on a target, where you are shooting it almost straight up to hit a target a few feet away, it's going to go up and then down, which takes longer. Meanwhile an arrow pointed straight at the target a few feet away and released, despite moving at the same speed gets to it's target a lot faster.

I will comment that I did not have a chance to test the game play and feel of the new LRM mechanics on the PTS... so I can't comment too heavily on this subject.

[The pessimistic optimist]

The6thMessenger, on 05 March 2019 - 05:04 PM, said:

ATMs do a hell lot more heat than LRMs, so using them in mid-range is quite simply a waste of heat. It's only advantage over LRMs is that it does borderline-OP damage short-range, but other than that it's even weaker than LRMs.

You forgot the lower ammo count vs LRMs. Point is the roll of ATMs is not to be a replacement LRM.

[Racerxintegra2k]

I cant handle another Lrmaggadon .. in fact i already hate the ATM meta builds. This could finally be it for me, we shall see.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 05:05 PM, said:

I thought it was important to note that direct fired LRMs actually didn't receive a "velocity buff" per say, as it was more so less distance was traveled by going in a straight line rather than a curved line. It's labeled as a velocity buff due to how the missile coding it, more than the missiles actually "moving faster". The code for missiles doesn't consider velocity, but rather only time to get to a destination. LRMs actually, by coding, don't have velocity speeds but instead uses something else to get on target within a time frame. This was to account for it's arc of fire. With the flatter path, the "time to get there" had to be adjusted.

Think of it as shooting an arrow. If you shoot an arrow in a high curve to land on a target, where you are shooting it almost straight up to hit a target a few feet away, it's going to go up and then down, which takes longer. Meanwhile an arrow pointed straight at the target a few feet away and released, despite moving at the same speed gets to it's target a lot faster.

I will comment that I did not have a chance to test the game play and feel of the new LRM mechanics on the PTS... so I can't comment too heavily on this subject.

Oh I get the lower-arc means faster time-to-target. I was there, I actually had the chance to try it out.

Problem is that PGI pumped the velocity from 175 m/s at PTS, then to 210 m/s post-PTS, that was the velocity buff i was talking about. And now they got a cascading **** of changes.

SirSmokes, on 05 March 2019 - 05:07 PM, said:

You forgot the lower ammo count vs LRMs. Point is the roll of ATMs is not to be a replacement LRM.

I'm pretty sure the roll of ATMs is the jack-of-all-trades weapon, only PGI ****** it up by not having ammo-switching, so this is what we got.

Having monstrous damage close-range does put ATMs at a specific niche, relegating mid-range to long-range use as "backup"-use. So like I said, velocity-buff is hardly noticable, unless beyond.

That being said, mid-range use seems important to them, PGI seems to want it competitive to LRMs at mid-range, so this is what they are doing. LRMs have dual nature of DF and IDF now, why not ATMs with dual-use of short-range monster and decent mid-range weapon?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 March 2019 - 05:38 PM.

[Khobai]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 03:29 PM, said:

Wouldn't that mean to balance them for T4-2?

no because the way the tier system is setup everyone eventually ends up in tier 1 regardless

[theplayerx4734]

The fact that ATMs do 0 dmg under 120 M and have low ammo is the balance for having 3 damage between 120-270 meters and IDF capability.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 05 March 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

no because the way the tier system is setup everyone eventually ends up in tier 1 regardless

Ummm... That's not entirely true. I know of several players who haven't changed rank, and some that have even gone down in rank. So not everyone will end up in T1. That's... kinda been a falsehood from a lot of people. Now, I will comment and agree that it's typically easier to go up in rank than it is down, and most players will slowly rise in rank, but not all will make it to T1.

But still, it seems like LRMs should be balanced upon the middle class of players, rather than the top or bottom percentage of players. If balanced for the top tier only, they have a chance of wrecking the lower tiers of play. If they are balanced for the low/new level of players, then they have the chance to becoming the ultimate and only weapon in the upper levels of the game play. It's a hard thing to balance, especially when you consider that they are indirect capable and homing weapons.

theplayerx4734, on 05 March 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

The fact that ATMs do 0 dmg under 120 M and have low ammo is the balance for having 3 damage between 120-270 meters and IDF capability.

ATM IDF capability is rather limited. They really don't have an IDF ability (for the most part), as their arc just isn't high enough for most classifications of "indirect" capability. Though, yes. They can do indirect fire in a fairly limited ability.

Personally speaking, I'd rather see a drop off soft minimum range for ATMs. As the purpose of ATMs (in lore) was to be able to shoot different types of missiles (short, mid or long range) depending upon the situation needed. In this game, we can't effectively have different ammo types, so PGI combined all the profiles into one "adjustable" missile. However, the 3 damage missile in lore has no minimum range, but the long range and mid range missiles do. Thus, I'd rather see a soft minimum range and maybe more leveling of their damage.

Then again, I also think LRMs currently outclass ATMs in every situation (per tonnage, ammo, crit space and heat generated) with only an exception to the 3 damage per missile bracket. That gives ATMs only a small window of "better" performance over LRMs, a reasonable window for "similar, but slightly worse" and a "you shouldn't be shooting ATMs that far, and LRMs are not good at those ranges either" for the last bracket.

As for balance between ATMs and LRMs, I'm not specifically certain. All I know is, I tend to get more mileage out of LRMs on average than I do ATMs. Some of that is probably a lack of familiarity though...

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 06:12 PM, said:

Personally speaking, I'd rather see a drop off soft minimum range for ATMs. As the purpose of ATMs (in lore) was to be able to shoot different types of missiles (short, mid or long range) depending upon the situation needed. In this game, we can't effectively have different ammo types, so PGI combined all the profiles into one "adjustable" missile. However, the 3 damage missile in lore has no minimum range, but the long range and mid range missiles do. Thus, I'd rather see a soft minimum range and maybe more leveling of their damage.

Then again, I also think LRMs currently outclass ATMs in every situation (per tonnage, ammo, crit space and heat generated) with only an exception to the 3 damage per missile bracket. That gives ATMs only a small window of "better" performance over LRMs, a reasonable window for "similar, but slightly worse" and a "you shouldn't be shooting ATMs that far, and LRMs are not good at those ranges either" for the last bracket.

I'd rather they removed the minimum-range, and distributed damage 1.6/2.0/2.4 damage upon their range-bands, so it's not as inefficient at long-range, or monstrously powerful close-range, while usable at all ranges -- as ATM is supposed to be.

[XDevilsChariotX]

To me LRM's are suppose to be a support weapon. Why they are trying to make them to where people think they can now brawl with them is just dumb. I also think as a support weapon, they shouldn't be able to put up the damage numbers they can do. But, just like other weapons boating is the problem. I really don't care anymore what they try to do with them though. Cover is easy to find.

[Tesunie]

The6thMessenger, on 05 March 2019 - 05:20 PM, said:

Oh I get the lower-arc means faster time-to-target. I was there, I actually had the chance to try it out.

Problem is that PGI pumped the velocity from 175 m/s at PTS, then to 210 m/s post-PTS, that was the velocity buff i was talking about. And now they got a cascading **** of changes.

I'm not sure on the exact math of what the reduced time should be for the lower arc while "maintaining the same velocity", but I wanted to make sure the right information was being discussed. Some people saw the increase, and didn't understand why it was increasing.

[Livaria]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

It's clear from the Steam player data, the wait times in the queues, and the failed matchmaking, that gaining new players, and retaining players are the two biggest issues confronting MWO.

In my opinion, PGI continue to buff LRMs because they are traditionally the weapon system used by new and less-skilled players. Many new and relatively unskilled players rely on them to do enough damage be able to earn the XP and C-Bills necessary to level their Mechs.

PGI's logic seems to be: "Let's keep buffing the weapon system - LRMs - most used by most new players. That way we can gain new players and retain them in the game."

However:

As LRMs grow in usage and effectiveness, more and more matches devolve into stagnant engagements where massed LRM boats on both sides are forced to hide and wait out the massed incoming missiles. It's not "fun". It's not creating the engaging kind of game that folks will want to play for a long time. I'm not confident that new players will hang around for a game like this.

Worse, many old hands and long-time dedicated supporters of MWO are heartily tired of LRM-fests. Even taking ECM and AMS, the unengaging gameplay of having to focus most of all on staying out of the missile rain is simply less fun than alternative playstyles including brawling, sniping, backstabbing etc.

TLDR: PGI continues to buff LRMs to make the game 'noob-friendly' and grow the playerbase, but I think it may ultimately achieve the opposite. New players will get bored quickly and leave. Loyal experienced players will increasingly walk away.

What is your view?

I think you make the same mistake as a lot of people, when it comes to projecting future outcomes. You take one scenario that is likely to happen to some extent, then you catastrophize it to the point of dominating the entire gameplay landscape. It's this part that I am doubtful of. LRM's would have to be extremely advantaged to do something like that.

Players are likely to still use a variety of weapons, Even the new ones. It's not like players aren't at all curious at all to explore other avenues of gameplay if they get bored. I'm not saying you're criticism is wrong, but your outcome doesn't describe the full reality of the situation. It's more likely that a percentage will get bored because of it; Lets say 5-8% for example. To really know how it will affect the newcomers, we're better off asking them.

People leave and join games for a multitude of reasons. Some may leave because they think LRM's would make the games more stale. To others, it never even occurred to them as a problem. They may be fully content being able to fulfill any combat role they can get their hands on.

I also take issue with your topic title. To make LRM's more effective to invite newcomers. isn't flawed logic. It's a flawed plan, and if you would believe it yourself... all plans are flawed.

The question is; does making LRM's more effective do more good then harm? For that, we will just have to see.

Edited by Livaria, 05 March 2019 - 08:04 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 07:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure on the exact math of what the reduced time should be for the lower arc while "maintaining the same velocity", but I wanted to make sure the right information was being discussed. Some people saw the increase, and didn't understand why it was increasing.

The way I understood it, the 175 m/s is actually the time-to-target that takes account the curve -- that means the LRMs ignoring the curve, pretending that it flies on a straight line is 175m/s, when in reality it's actually much faster. The missiles actually fly faster, by about 1.6x, or at 336 m/s as it follows the arc. Now make the arc lower, it's still doing the adjusted 335 m/s, but because the path taken is shorter, it results into a less time-to-target.

It was this thread:

Navid A1, on 18 January 2019 - 02:04 AM, said:

The velocity stats posted for LRMs do not correspond to the missiles themselves. They correspond to the direct distance by time to target ratio.

Missiles themselves travel at a speed corresponding to the length of the trajectory curve divided by time to target... which is much faster.



basically:

Actual missile velocity = velocity in stats * (curve length/direct distance)


In PTS, missile velocity is the same (as shown above) for both no LOS and LOS cases. Therefore, a lower arc results in a time to target much faster than a 175m/s projectile



FUN FACT:

Most of you know that ATMs in the game use copy/pasted LRM code... right?

I think I don't have to tell you about how fast ATMs have been travelling all this time.... yes, you guessed it.... 350m/s
game stats says 220.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 05 March 2019 - 08:46 PM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Tesunie, on 05 March 2019 - 06:12 PM, said:

As for balance between ATMs and LRMs, I'm not specifically certain. All I know is, I tend to get more mileage out of LRMs on average than I do ATMs. Some of that is probably a lack of familiarity though...

To make the best use of ATMs it all about using the map terrain and team support to get close. Don't fire till you see the white of there eyes. Then all of a sudden mech armor seems like it made of tissue paper.

[Vxheous]

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:15 PM, said:

Really...? I struggle to believe that anyone who is not physically handicapped could find it even mildly difficult to keep the big red reticle in the big red target box. Even with a joystick.


I am suggesting that the even more original idea - which has now driven several buffs to LRMs - was to buff the easiest weapon system in order to attract and retain new and unskilled players.

So their decision to buff indirect LRMs isn't a 'botch'. It's a further step in a deliberate strategy.

The 'botch' is that buffed LRMs may tank the playerbase further, not increase it.

crazytimes, on 03 March 2019 - 06:21 PM, said:

There may be a lot of much older and less able people playing than you think. MWO is at about the upper limit of what I can play speed and reflex wise.

If that upsets you then you can show me on the doll where it touches you.

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

Meanwhile, we actually see noobs who are terrible at aiming, yet you quite literally cannot even? You expect too much of them.

They are noobs, new players, we cannot reasonably expect them to just get on our level. Simmilarly there's different machines of different capabilities, such as people playing 30 FPS and below. And there are also actual handicapped people, they do exist BTW.

I'd rather they keep LRMs and other homing weapons as the easy-weapon they are supposed to be, LRMs already have that incoming dual-arc feature, just keep IDF borderline-useless without NARC-TAG support, and make LOS kinda decent. No need to make LRMs that harder to use.

Appogee, on 03 March 2019 - 06:41 PM, said:

But there's almost no 'level' for them to be on. I mean, it takes less hand-eye coordination to keep an LRM reticle in a target box than it does to position a cursor in a block of text in Microsoft Word.

Handicapped people - fine, they deserve all the help we can give them. But you're not suggesting that PGI are balancing MWO on the basis of meeting the needs of handicapped people, are you?

If any of you didn't already know, there's an aussie streamer that's a C4 quadraplegic, that's right, QUADRAPLEGIC. He can still aim and not use lock on weapons, none of you have any excuses. Here's his stream btw, you can see he's literally strapped down, and uses various controls and even a mouthpiece.

https://www.twitch.tv/bishopwarrior

Edited by Vxheous, 06 March 2019 - 05:42 AM.

[Besh]

XDevilsChariotX, on 05 March 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

To me LRM's are suppose to be a support weapon. Why they are trying to make them to where people think they can now brawl with them is just dumb. I also think as a support weapon, they shouldn't be able to put up the damage numbers they can do. But, just like other weapons boating is the problem. I really don't care anymore what they try to do with them though. Cover is easy to find.

Do IS LRMs still have 180minRange, and ClanLRMs damage dropoff below 180mtrs ? If so, how come people think they can brawl with them ?

[The pessimistic optimist]

Besh, on 06 March 2019 - 08:12 AM, said:

Do IS LRMs still have 180minRange, and ClanLRMs damage dropoff below 180mtrs ? If so, how come people think they can brawl with them ?

Some people can read the range finder and can keep the distance they need too;)