67 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Right there. That's what I want to see. How hard is it to ask for that?


Anyway Victor Morson is cooking up something else on his own LRM test lately, but I have been working feverishly to try and rationalize the LRM balance issues I see.

Right now from what I can tell the LRM10 is the best version to load and boat, making the LRM15 and LRM20 pointless. The LRM5 would be better, but hardpoint restrictions makes that undoable.

Why? Missile Spread.

The designers at PGI are using a pathing for the missiles from the launcher to the target - using the center of the target as the ending point, ends up being your lovable CT. I don't mind, and it makes sense.

But the issue is the missiles launched fire in a single shot spread. A LRM 5 volley is a tight packed shot, but easily picked off by AMS. The LRM10 is bigger but cna punch through, the LRM15 gets larger and the LRM20 from my beloved C4 is friggin useless.

Consistently tests I run have the LRM10 currently at the most effective, and boated on my C4 in a LRM40 is consistently outperforming the dual LRM20 it should have. Every time. To further test it, I ran a LRM40 on my A1. 2x LRM10 and 4x LRM5 - dangerous as hell to do, but the damage was even higher. I didn't mind the results, I can core a Stalker in 4 or 5 shots reliably.

Wait... I recall using my LRM40 C4 with dual LRM20s and it took... alot more. Grr...

EDIT:
I forgote to note, but I cannot see a rational difference between the LRM15 and LRM10 for CT damage. The rest is nice, but its superficial compared to the focus of brining a mech down. Since the LRMs only target the center of the mech, I can't justify the additional damage to other parts compared to the focal of it - since I am forced to hit center anyway, the LRM10 tighter grouping is continually rewarding better ammo usage and per shot usage than the LRM15.

To add insult to injury the recharge times and heat penalizes the builds. The smaller launchers overhead while the larger dealt it better - but the larger can't damage nearly as effectively while being worse for ammo usage.

That and it annoys me that the LRMs are supposed to reward larger launchers with more damage at the same pace if you can fit the tonnage and crit requirements. Instead the recharge penalizes the larger even further by reducing the damage output.


But why does the Stalker do so well? Its got LRM10 tubes. It forces the LRM15 and LRM20 to fire in the LRM10 pattern. As a result its a tighter spread damage and pays itself off.


Oh, and I found a glitch. I can load up my A1 with its 2x 15 missile tubes and launch off a LRM50 in a single volley by loading 4x LRM10 and 2x LRM5. Don't think that's working as intended, but I like it - with the spread of the LRM10 I core mechs almost as bad as the PPC boats.

The worst offense I have to admit to? You can't AMS a LRM50 volley like that. At all.


So I have been thinking on how to balance it, and I have asked before - see picture above - but I would like to see LRMs launching pattern reworked to fire in volley shots. Its buffs AMS usage and LRM damage only if it gets through. It does cause more CT damage, but its a fair balance for the cost per ton. You can still cover, and fast mechs can dodge it while the LRM is a target needing to aim or loose the shot.


My solution:

LRM spread is to be set to somewhere between the LRM10 and LRM15 size where the missile arc randomly follows the path to the target within that. Pretty much what we have, just set that for all launchers.

Automatically stagger the shot in a salvo pattern to spread the missiles out. This buffs AMS effectiveness for its duration, tightens LRM spread with the current mechanics to improve damage and make them viable in more mech versions.

Lastly, bring their recharge times to the same to reward larger loads.
I'll use the LRM5 as the base rate.

I see two ways to do this, and I prefer the first one.

1) Stagger-fire every 0.1 seconds. The LRM5 launches singles, the LRM10 in pairs, LRM15 in 3 and the LRM20 in 4 missile salvos. Its a total 0.4 second duration. Not too unlike firing a LRM5 from a NARC tube.

LRM5
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.85 recharge +0.4 second duration
1 missile per 0.1 seconds

LRM10
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.85 recharge +0.4 second duration
2 missiles per 0.1 seconds

LRM15
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.85 recharge +0.4 second duration
3 missiles per 0.1 seconds

LRM20
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.85 recharge +0.4 second duration
4 missiles per 0.1 seconds


2) Firing off the missiles in a set 5-volley pattern. Stagger the shot somewhat more to 0.2 second to maybe 0.5 second delay to allow AMS to get a shot.

LRM5
1 Damage
2 Heat
3.25 recharge
5 missile volley

LRM10
1 Damage
2 Heat
3.05 recharge +0.2 second duration
2x 5 missile volley per 0.2 seconds

LRM15
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.85 recharge +0.4 second duration
3x 5 missile volley per 0.2 seconds

LRM20
1 Damage
2 Heat
2.65 recharge +0.6 second duration
4x 5 missile volley per 0.2 seconds


3) Ideally: Allow the user to swap between volley and stagger shot missiles like the ECM can swap. Default to the stagger but allow to swap to volley.


With the current pathing the damage averages out for the better, so the reduction in damage is needed per missile. This helps keep the larger boats from being too overpowered as well, but really doesn't change the output of certain ones like a Stalker who relied on that tighter spread anyway. But ti rewards other users without penalizing them on a whole too much.

AMS damage might need to be brought down to balance how effective it could become, but I think it might be fine where it is now.

EDITED: added numbers for what I assume is fairly close to accurate to show what I intend

This shows the scaling effect, rough projected numbers as it appears. I based it off the assumption of basically full-launch effects from a Catapult as its intended to do eventually I believe.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 05 July 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[theta123]

I heard enough...take my like

I am gonna replace my LRM15's on my stalker with LRM 10's and see what the diffrence is.

[General Taskeen]

I think what you are referring to is something like Ripple Fire.

[Unbound Inferno]

Eh, same thing, different name.

[theta123]

I removed my 2 LRM 20's + LRM 5 (LRM 45)

And replaced these with 4 LRM 10's.

The results are...Shocking.

On testing grounds, one volley of LRM 45 always did around 15% damage at the range of 750 meters.
The 4 X LRM 10 combination, all fired alpha from an Stalker 5-s, did 17-18% per volley! Compared VS the Stationary atlas, the LRM 45 vollet did 9% damage while the LRM 40 volley did 11%!

It also saved me 2 tonnes wich i spended in extra heatsinks.

I just did 3 matches with this LRM loadout, and it is WAY more effective then my previous one. Thanks Unbound inferno!

[Unbound Inferno]

theta123, on 04 July 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I removed my 2 LRM 20's + LRM 5 (LRM 45)

And replaced these with 4 LRM 10's.

The results are...Shocking.

On testing grounds, one volley of LRM 45 always did around 15% damage at the range of 750 meters.
The 4 X LRM 10 combination, all fired alpha from an Stalker 5-s, did 17-18% per volley! Compared VS the Stationary atlas, the LRM 45 vollet did 9% damage while the LRM 40 volley did 11%!

It also saved me 2 tonnes wich i spended in extra heatsinks.

I just did 3 matches with this LRM loadout, and it is WAY more effective then my previous one. Thanks Unbound inferno!

Happy to help.

Now when will they fix it?

[Alistair Winter]

I'm not sure that this is a problem.

The current situation is such that if you have a mech designed to boat LRMs (e.g. CPLT-C4, AWS-8R or STK-5M, you have enough missile hardpoints to boat a lot of smaller LRM weapons. If you have a mech that isn't primarily supposed to boat LRMs, you can still carry a lot of LRMs (e.g. 2 x LRM20), but it won't be as effective.

With missile tubes being a factor, this creates 4 kinds of mechs:
1) Mechs with few hardpoints and few tubes - terrible for LRMs.
2) Mechs with few hardpoints and many tubes - can use LRMs, but mostly as a support weapon, due to damage spread)
3) Mechs with many hardpoints and few tubes - can use LRMs as primary weapons, with high DPS (e.g. 4 x LRM5) rather than high alphastrike (e.g. 4 x LRM10)
4) Mechs with many hardpoints and many tubes - can use LRMs as primary weapons, with either high DPS or high alphastrike.

[Unbound Inferno]

It is a problem.

The Catapult line intended to use LRMs as support but can't deal the damage with larger launchers. The support is ineffective damage that doesn't help. The only support is the shock factor of incoming missile. Loading smaller launchers I can reach that effective damage, but I overheat fast and loose ammo or sacrifice too much to gain from it in mobility - showing the Stalker is better at the moment.

LRM15s are not really any more effective than LRM10s and the LRM20s waste ammo. Precious ammo.

The whole 2x armor but only 150% ammo really hurts LRMs where it shouldn't with the only one being the Stalker that is working well with it for its tonnage. It shouldn't be that way.

[ExAstris]

I can't say I approve the exact numbers if your solution, but I do agree that the spread difference between launchers is silly, especially as it makes the largest launchers the least efficient.

LRM spread needs to be handled evenly across all launcher types, regardless of whether that means changing the spread of the current mechanics to be identical across all launchers, or changing the way the current launchers fire (ripple fire or mini-volleys of 5) so that LRM5s and 20s have the same spread.


I would personally rebalance the current launchers (assuming identical spread per missile) to the following numbers (assuming the simultaneous group launch mechanic remains).

Increase the LRM5 heat to 3, but then drastically reducing the cycle time of the LRM5 and 10. (I'll use 3.25 for the 10 and 2.0 for the 5 for this example)

This would give LRMs a missile/second capacity of
20 = 4.21
15 = 3.53
10 = 3.08
05 = 2.50

But would give them a heat/missile of

20 = .3
15 = .333
10 = .4
05 = .6


While this does allow a pair of LRM5s to have more dps than an LRM20, it really won't be a problem. They'll stagger their shots by twice as much (even when group fired), meaning AMS will chew through twice as many. Furthermore, the mech using a pair of 5s will generate twice as much heat per missile as the single 20 would. Maximum boating for large launchers remains around 4 due to weight constraints (meaning maximum missile dps remains untouched), and maximum boating for smaller launchers will now be capped around 4 launchers as well because the heat output becomes unmanageable very quickly (hence the need to bump the LRM5s heat up by one point).

This means that smaller mechs can still put out some noteworthy LRM damage, but it will be more easily mitigated by AMS than our current boats are. It also gives our current boats the option to downgrade to smaller launchers, saving weight for a secondary array of weapons, but the increased heat output means they'll be less effective at LRM support and incapable of using LRMs while engaging with other weapons due to the high heat of the smaller launchers.

[Unbound Inferno]

Eh, I leave the exact numbers for PGI to fuss with. But I think that in their mechanics the staggering fire is the better option.

The issues with cramming the missiles tighter is that the LRM20 become TOO effective. Assuming they ever impliment the tube adjustment visual where the Stalker woudl be seen with 80 tubes it'll be way out of line. As it is now the the LRM80 Stalker then could compete with the PPC Stalker for damage - but for now it doesn't. And I don't like the idea that its still reduced the game options to that since the LRM40 Catapult can't compete with either.

The other part is the original battletech date they are basing our numbers from was done with the idea all the launchers fire the same rate, just different sizes for more damage if you can afford it.

As it is now without adjusting it the LRM5 on a per ton comparison still out-damages and out DPS the LRM20. It should be the other way around, but still keep the heat of the LRM5 being hotter on a per launch than the LRM20 to reward the cost in size.

[Takony]

Nice info! Gonna try something along the lines of 2 PPC 2 LRM 10.

[General Taskeen]

Also, ripple firing is a pseudo balancing measure (and it looks cool):



Missiles successively fired after each one makes a long stream of missiles, whereby AMS can take them down one at a time easier. In the case of SRMs, it makes them more skill-based, where you have to aim them as they fire, rather than shooting them in blobs.

[Unbound Inferno]

General Taskeen, on 04 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Also, ripple firing is a pseudo balancing measure (and it looks cool):



Missiles successively fired after each one makes a long stream of missiles, whereby AMS can take them down one at a time easier. In the case of SRMs, it makes them more skill-based, where you have to aim them as they fire, rather than shooting them in blobs.

YES! That is what I want here.

Oh, that looks great, makes me wish I played that game.

[Unbound Inferno]

Edited original post to include a basic numbers spreadsheet of where it ought to land.

[Deathlike]

It's worth mentioning that the cluster of missiles are consistently less focused with the bigger launchers when it comes to SRMs.

This behavior is not surprising though, so personally I don't see it as a problem. In fact, you would have an argument that LRM10s with LRM5s in unison is a lot more effective (or staggered fire from missile tube #s for that matter).. which also would suggest the Stalker-3H is less effective than its other counterparts....

Also, having more missile hardpoints is a lot more beneficial than bigger missile launchers...

Edited by Deathlike, 04 July 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 04 July 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

It's worth mentioning that the cluster of missiles are consistently less focused with the bigger launchers when it comes to SRMs.

This behavior is not surprising though, so personally I don't see it as a problem. In fact, you would have an argument that LRM10s with LRM5s in unison is a lot more effective (or staggered fire from missile tube #s for that matter).. which also would suggest the Stalker-3H is less effective than its other counterparts....

Also, having more missile hardpoints is a lot more beneficial than bigger missile launchers...

The behavior is a mechanical issue within the game. It shouldn't do that as its a deceptive and counterproductive way to make it behave. But it is something you can notice off the bat, true.

I can't carry the ammo on a Catapult A-1 to support the launchers through the match at that pace. I loose out on the idea of backups to actually cause damage with the main and I end up being in a bad spot when I run dry.

The DPS is woefully against the larger sizes, and with hardpoint restrictions I can't even accommodate much for an alternative. It sucks, but the benefits can't match the cost IMO.

True on the stalker comparison. Most use the 5S I think anyway unless its to grind for the skills.

[Deathlike]

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

The behavior is a mechanical issue within the game. It shouldn't do that as its a deceptive and counterproductive way to make it behave. But it is something you can notice off the bat, true.

I can't carry the ammo on a Catapult A-1 to support the launchers through the match at that pace. I loose out on the idea of backups to actually cause damage with the main and I end up being in a bad spot when I run dry.

The DPS is woefully against the larger sizes, and with hardpoint restrictions I can't even accommodate much for an alternative. It sucks, but the benefits can't match the cost IMO.

True on the stalker comparison. Most use the 5S I think anyway unless its to grind for the skills.

Well, look at it this way.

When SRMs had the original flight path (if you've seen the pictures someone drew up, they are pretty accurate), SRM4s had the best combination of size and trajectory (it was close to an SRM2) when you aren't using Artemis. SRM6s did not have such a luxury, but you would cover more area to hit a target (and do less damage overall since it wasn't focused).

The same idea/concept is being applied to LRMs. If LRMs were universally equal in accuracy/spread, LRM20s would be a straight out no brainer. Ideally, if you're planning to use LRM20s, you would have to invest in Artemis.. as that is primarily geared to reduce the spread and favor bigger launchers.

For SRMs, Artemis is EXTRAORDINARILY useful for SRM6s... but it can be somewhat debatable when you apply them to SRM4s (the spread is pretty good, but made even better/tighter). It isn't the most viable for an SRM2 launcher (you would be better off with Streaks for the tonnage spent).

My understanding that bigger launchers REQUIRE you to invest in Artemis, and the smaller ones not so much (not so much for the LRM5, but for the LRM10+LRM15 it's still useful). So it's one of those cost-benefit analysis that is one you would need to look into further when deciding to go big or not.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 July 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Clasbyte]

Alistair Winter, on 04 July 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

2) Mechs with few hardpoints and many tubes - can use LRMs, but mostly as a support weapon, due to damage spread)

What dmg spread? LRMs are again pinpoint dmg to the ct not like the streaks they hit all over the freaking place. PGI just made an easy to use no extra software needed aimbot, again. Or did you mean the 1-3 points explosion dmg the missile deal to adjacent armor parts?

[Adridos]

Unbound Inferno, on 04 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Oh, that looks great, makes me wish I played that game.

Why don't you download it, then? There's a quasi-tourney in preparation so even if your timezone didn't corrspond with the time when most people play the game, you're sure to see some action.

http://mwomercs.com/...t-phoenix-down/

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 04 July 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Well, look at it this way.

When SRMs had the original flight path (if you've seen the pictures someone drew up, they are pretty accurate), SRM4s had the best combination of size and trajectory (it was close to an SRM2) when you aren't using Artemis. SRM6s did not have such a luxury, but you would cover more area to hit a target (and do less damage overall since it wasn't focused).

The same idea/concept is being applied to LRMs. If LRMs were universally equal in accuracy/spread, LRM20s would be a straight out no brainer. Ideally, if you're planning to use LRM20s, you would have to invest in Artemis.. as that is primarily geared to reduce the spread and favor bigger launchers.

For SRMs, Artemis is EXTRAORDINARILY useful for SRM6s... but it can be somewhat debatable when you apply them to SRM4s (the spread is pretty good, but made even better/tighter). It isn't the most viable for an SRM2 launcher (you would be better off with Streaks for the tonnage spent).

My understanding that bigger launchers REQUIRE you to invest in Artemis, and the smaller ones not so much (not so much for the LRM5, but for the LRM10+LRM15 it's still useful). So it's one of those cost-benefit analysis that is one you would need to look into further when deciding to go big or not.

Yet that is the point with LRMs as ARTEMIS and TAG are required components if you want that to be your damage dealer. The system in battletech was intended to have the larger launcer reward the player more for the larger mech if you can use it - and the numbers here as supposedly based off that. Yet what we have is the mechanics of it saying the smaller is better with a hardpoint restriction limiting placements.

It penalizes the system to where if you think numbers work where you are just burning ammo cause most of the shots are wasted by the spread.

That is why I want to see it reworked to make it balanced and working as it should be. The larger being the better if you can use it.

But think of it; how much am I talking about?

The LRM20+ARTEMIS is 11 tons, plus 3 tons ammo minimum for 14. That's two PPC cannons.
The LRM20 as it is now deals maybe 4-8 points of damage reliably on the CT.
The PPC can get 10 at max and 20 under long range. And the ERPPC outranges the LRM by a long shot. Oh, and unlimited ammo.

See a problem here? Cause I do.

My hope is the balanced means the LRM20 could deal 10-14 points instead assuming AMS is out of ammo or not a factor. This brings LRMs back into a contending role with its drawbacks.