25 replies to this topic

[Houseckat]

I would like to preface this by saying that I have played the game since before release, generally favouring direct-fire weapons. The few times I have tried and played around with indirect fire have been largely unappealing to play, to the point of being sterile. However, I do have fun working with friends over external VOIP and providing spotting data when I can to people who do enjoy this method of fighting. I apologise in advance if this topic has already been brought up, or if these suggestions have been made in the wrong forum.

With that in mind, I would like to make a few suggestions related to LRM and SSRM accuracy and lock-ons, and the use of TAG and NARC equipment.

I've recently been on the receiving end of several matches where indirect fire has ended my match after a minute, and I have been on the receiving end of four or five mechs worth of chain-fired LRM5s and 10s. So, yes, there is some emotion, though I will try to wash it out for sake of clarity.

I have experience with the TableTop, that this game does at least say it tries to emulate, and the ease and effectiveness of co-ordinated spotting and indirect fire does strike me as being out of line with the tabletop rules regarding it.

In the tabletop, while spotting and indirect fire IS effective, it requires more time to set up, a turn of inactivity while in direct LOS and exposed to enemy fire. I'll make it clear now; I'm not suggesting that spotters be forced or required to not engage targets they designate, nor to be required to stand still. But the most valuable part of it is the fact that it leaves fragile rear-line mechs out of direct fire roles, and still able to enact righteous fury upon your opponent.

Instead, what I propose is something akin to 'transmission lag'. Cause indirectly-fired LRMs, LRMS on mechs without direct Line Of Sight to target, to fire on the target's position from a few milliseconds ago, or otherwise have reduced accuracy. Also an option, is for targets lit up by mechs who are currently locking on with their own missiles, to not be able to transmit targeting data to other mechs without LOS.

Which brings us to a positive use for the NARC beacon. The NARC as an item, by it's desription, is a physical beacon which is applied to enemy mechs by use of a rocket motor. Indirect targeting of a mech that is both lit up by a spotter, and under a NARC beacon influence, would then remove the penalty for indirect fire accuracy.

The TAG laser, too, could work the same way, and then a bonus is applied if both a TAG and NARC are active on a mech outside of the mech firing's LOS.

Say that there are three mechs; A, B, and C. For ease of demonstration. Mech A, a hunchback, is standing with a wall between himself, and mech C, a catapult. mech B, a raven with NARC and TAG has full view of mech A.

Under current rules, as far as I have been able to observe, mech B would designate Mech A with 'r' (or equivalent rebinding key) and mech C would be able to unload their choice of indirect fire goodness with equivalent accuraccy to direct fire.

Under my proposal, Mech B could still designate Mech A, Mech C could still fire, but even at the stock hunchback's 64.8kph, Mech A has a chance of evading some of the missiles. Mech B could hit mech A with the NARC and them mech C's LRM's of great justice would be targeted with full accuracy. If Mech B were to also use TAG, the two bonuses together would be the same as NARC or TAG alone on a mech that is not behind cover.

As for SSRMs, the TAG and NARC bonuses are inconsequential, as the 100% hit rating applies. However, with clan SSRM4s and 6s coming out, everybody has their two bits for balancing these weapons. Which I would have to offer my own comment, which is; Limit the firing arc of the missiles to close to boresight. SSRMs are accurate, short-range, and effectively 'shotguns', if one forgives the LBX or loads it with solid slugs.

By limiting the firing arc of the SSRM to the front 45 degree arc(or thereabouts), you can maintain that 100% accuracy, but limit their ability to strike with relative ease at faster-moving targets.

Again, a demonstration. Mech A, an Orion . Mech B, a Jenner. Mech B is running around Mech A with impunity, Mech A has SSRM2s. Under current rules, Mech A can have target lock on Mech B, and regardless of torso angle, can fire on Mech B with SSRMs, scoring guaranteed hits.

Under the suggested rules, the SSRM2s on mech A, can only fire when Mech B is 'in front' of the launcher, in this case, a torso mount, limiting Mech A's field of fire to view straight ahead. Alternatively, SSRM2s on the arms would have a wider field of fire, but only be able to fire within a 45 degree cone around the SSRM's 'source'

alternatively alternatively, Mech A is a skilled pilot and has scored many hits on the Jenner. Under current rules, Mech B can make rapid passes, firing SSRMs at the last minute and score hits as they run past the Orion, leaving themselves less open to hits, and have chances to hit rear and side armour.

under the suggestion, Mech B would have to slow down and track the target in order to make the same shot, or make the shot on the approach, giving Mech A more chances to turn their torso and instead catch the missile on the arm, or on armour that is less damaged.

Those are my suggestions regarding missiles as they stand. The angry part of me wonders why four LRM5s seem so much more effective than a single LRM20 when the same number of the same missiles is being fired, and why my AMS only seems to drop, at most, two or three missiles from the clusters fired at me, but he shall be silenced aside from passive-aggressive mumblings.

TL,DR; Make indirect LRMs less accurate, counteract with NARC/TAG bonuses, limit SSRM field of fire to cone originating from launcher.

EDIT; I'm aware of the typo in the thread title. If someone could fix that, that would be great.

Edited by Houseckat, 10 January 2014 - 01:10 AM.

[Craig Steele]

Really? The spotter needs to designate with the R key?

I thought the firer needed to select the target ?

If the spotter can see 3 mechs grouped up, can not the firer make his choice of which target he wants to hit? Or does he just fire and the spotter designates?

I always choose my own targets when I (rarely) play an indirect LRM carrier, or I get my own locks and just bomb away.

[Victor Morson]

Indirect fire doesn't get the missile-tightening advantages from TAG/Artemis and blows without the TAG. It's not even remotely overpowered.

Get yourself an AMS and learn how to find cover LRMs can't crack.

[Nihtgenga]

There are more effects on the efficiency deficit of LRM20 vs. 4xLRM5. First, hit detection is flawed. So, the more missiles strike at the same time, the more of them tend to be not registered. Following, it's more a "LRM16" vs. 4x"LRM4.5". Second, tighter spread. Four LRM5 missile flocks fly in a much more tight package than the LRM20, resulting in a better hit/miss ratio.
If chainfired, the much longer cockpit shake from the LRM5 would also have to be considered as third point.

I don't agree on homing streaks (they are NOT more precise SRMs, they just conserve ammo by not firing, if you're aiming bad) and would favor a different approach on them, but for your indirect fire/CW-approach, I definitely support this direction of strenghtening the support roles by TAG/NARC (especially NARC, since this is close to be completely unused atm). This would also make the lesser armored second-line mech builds finally viable (at least to a certain degree) and increase the fielded build diversity.
I see the possibility of being able to lock any target detected by a spotter and not just the one selected by him as wrong - doing that without drawbacks should be C3-feature, not for free. Same thing with the zoom, any mech has an built-in sniping sight fro free - why? This might as well be a feature of a seperate piece of equipment, like targeting computer.

Unfortunately, I don't believe in PGI doing that. They never did such a large-scale approach on interdependent weaponry adjustment, not talking about possible tactical equipment combination - and their latest statements in direction of introducing crippled clans instead of countering superior clan-tech by more CW of the inner sphere do not point into that direction as well.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 10 January 2014 - 02:03 AM.

[Magical Pills]

Victor Morson, on 10 January 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Indirect fire doesn't get the missile-tightening advantages from TAG/Artemis and blows without the TAG. It's not even remotely overpowered.

Get yourself an AMS and learn how to find cover LRMs can't crack.

Housecat has some good points. Personally I don’t have any problems with LRM’s in game I mostly stick to cover; I also personally don’t use LRMs either. But please have a more clear and concise argument others than “learn how to play”. Personally I would like to see where this goes as a debate.

[Houseckat]

Craig Steele, on 10 January 2014 - 01:50 AM, said:

Really? The spotter needs to designate with the R key?

Currently, target designation is done with the R-key lockon used to display a target mech's vital stats, like weapon loadout and armour damage. This suggestion doesn't involve changing that.

Quote

I thought the firer needed to select the target ?

The firer can lock onto targets that are selected by teammates currently, and can choose from these targets, also according to current setup, and not something I can see needing to be changed.

Quote

If the spotter can see 3 mechs grouped up, can not the firer make his choice of which target he wants to hit? Or does he just fire and the spotter designates?

If the mech performing spotting duty has a mech targetted currently ('r' key) then the mech's position and the ability to lock on is transmitted currently to friendly mechs, which is the basis of the indirect fire system in this game

Quote

I always choose my own targets when I (rarely) play an indirect LRM carrier, or I get my own locks and just bomb away.

Indirect LRM carriers generally aren't in a position to have LOS on a target, and thus cannot get their own locks outside of the limited sensor range presented. The targets you're able to lock on to when playing indirect LRMs are the targets that have been selected by teammates with the R key, or automatically designated by applying damage to them.

Nihtgenga, on 10 January 2014 - 01:55 AM, said:

There are more effects on the efficiency deficit of LRM20 vs. 4xLRM5. First, hit detection is flawed. So, the more missiles strike at the same time, the more of them tend to be not registered. Following, it's more a "LRM16" vs. 4x"LRM4.5". Second, tighter spread. Four LRM5 missile flocks fly in a much more tight package than the LRM20, resulting in a better hit/miss ratio.
If chainfired, the much longer cockpit shake from the LRM5 would also have to be considered as third point.

I don't agree on homing streaks (they are NOT more precise SRMs, they just conserve ammo by not firing, if you're aiming bad) and would favor a different approach on them, but for your indirect fire/CW-approach, I definitely support this direction of strenghtening the support roles by TAG/NARC (especially NARC, since this is close to be completely unused atm). This would also make the lesser armored second-line mech builds finally viable (at least to a certain degree) and increase the fielded build diversity.

Unfortunately, I don't believe in PGI doing that. They never did such a large-scale approach on interdependent weaponry adjustment, not talking about possible tactical combination - and their latest statements in direction of introducing crippled clans instead of countering superior clan-tech by more CW of the inner sphere do not point into that direction as well.

The SSRM idea was really a side-note, and less important than the tactical interdependence and more involved spotting ideas, to increase the amounts of TAG and NARC fielded. I agree that PGI probably won't do anything, but I still feel the need to voice it, and would like to see other people's opinions on the idea nonetheless.

Victor Morson, on 10 January 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Indirect fire doesn't get the missile-tightening advantages from TAG/Artemis and blows without the TAG. It's not even remotely overpowered.

Get yourself an AMS and learn how to find cover LRMs can't crack.

Ah, yes...This was intended to be a debate about mechanics, not about piloting skill. I would appreciate you taking this thread in the spirit it was intended.

[Craig Steele]

Hmmm, I am not so sure about that but happy to be convinced.

In my experience, I can see whatever the spotter can see. Heck sometimes they are not even spotting for me and just doing their own little battle.

For example, our Jenner in a circle with a Spider, I can target their Wolverine on the edge of the battle. Many times my targets triangle is hollow until I select them.

So umm, I kinda thought that it was the firers responsibilty to select the target, the spotter to find it.

Now ofc is my spotter loses contact with that target bang goes my firing solution so ideally I want to target whatever the spotter is as he is more likely to hold that target. But its not a requirement is it? I can target anything he can see even if he wants to go for another target?

I realise this is a bit of a tangent to your OP, but I kinda want to ensure I am on the same page before I jump in

[Kaijin]

Houseckat, on 10 January 2014 - 02:07 AM, said:

I would appreciate you taking this thread in the spirit it was intended.

Mostly what I see is another NERF LRMS! post, when LRMs have already be heavily over-nerfed in order to appease the masses that can't be bothered to screen for spotters or use cover.

edit: The only things MWO has taken from TT is tonnage, armor & internal structure (doubled), and the names of things. I'd hardly call that emulation. It'd be a better game IMO if they did more to emulate TT (heat scale, no pin-point alphas, jump jets, no jesus box, etc.), but that's never going to happen.

Edited by Kaijin, 10 January 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[Houseckat]

Craig Steele, on 10 January 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

Hmmm, I am not so sure about that but happy to be convinced.

In my experience, I can see whatever the spotter can see. Heck sometimes they are not even spotting for me and just doing their own little battle.

For example, our Jenner in a circle with a Spider, I can target their Wolverine on the edge of the battle. Many times my targets triangle is hollow until I select them.

Like I said, I was relatively angry when I originally posted, and it's my general field of experience playing with friends in a pre-made (As it's too awkward to convince other players to designate in chat sometimes) That we'd actively designate targets. The few times I have used LRMs indirectly in PUGs by myself, I've only ever had one or two actively targeted hostiles to select from.

[Nihtgenga]

Craig Steele, on 10 January 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

Hmmm, I am not so sure about that but happy to be convinced.

In my experience, I can see whatever the spotter can see. Heck sometimes they are not even spotting for me and just doing their own little battle.

For example, our Jenner in a circle with a Spider, I can target their Wolverine on the edge of the battle. Many times my targets triangle is hollow until I select them.

So umm, I kinda thought that it was the firers responsibilty to select the target, the spotter to find it.

Now ofc is my spotter loses contact with that target bang goes my firing solution so ideally I want to target whatever the spotter is as he is more likely to hold that target. But its not a requirement is it? I can target anything he can see even if he wants to go for another target?

I realise this is a bit of a tangent to your OP, but I kinda want to ensure I am on the same page before I jump in

The ability of sharing ALL sensor data in BT universe is done by C3-network: http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit and I feel that should be reflected in MWO.

The observation of "spotters" doing their own small battles comes from the fact that they do not have any need to select and keep a specific target marked for the LRM support (= spotter skill), and furthermore not even need to sacrifice any tonnage on that quite powerful ability. These locks come "for free" on any mech currently, and moreover have the unwanted side-effect that any light detecting a group of enemy mechs automatically allows his support to fire at all of them at once, adding to the "LRMageddon"-Meta used by some premades.

[Craig Steele]

I'll go check then

[Nihtgenga]

Kaijin, on 10 January 2014 - 02:30 AM, said:

Mostly what I see is another NERF LRMS! post, when LRMs have already be heavily over-nerfed in order to appease the masses that can't be bothered to screen for spotters or use cover.

The LRM nerfs could be undone in favor of the need of CW to bring them to use efficiently. Same effect, but more dependent on intelligent piloting and dedicated builds.

/edit:

Heck, sometimes lately I found myself using the current HGN-733C© Trial Mech with destroyed RT (= down to 3xSSRM2) in the second half of a game as spotter several times!
A HGN CT is durable enough to walk up the well-entrenched enemy blob-of-death and survive long enough to allow a deadly LRM rain from my own lines to reliably home in on all of the predamaged enemies at once. And if they know what I'm up to when I advance, they only have two choices: Kill me before I get into sensor range or get away from me. However, both choices include exposing themselves more to fire from my team...

This is not what reasonable CW should be like in my opinion, but currently an effective tactic in MWO.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 10 January 2014 - 03:07 AM.

[Houseckat]

Nihtgenga, on 10 January 2014 - 02:41 AM, said:

The ability of sharing ALL sensor data in BT universe is done by C3-network: http://www.sarna.net...C3_Command_Unit and I feel that should be reflected in MWO.

While this is a good explanation for the sensor-sharing abilities of mechs, the item itself is not present in the game. The C3 Command Unit and Slave Unit each weigh a tonne and take up a critical slot, and neither is present in the loadouts present in the game. People I've talked to outside the forum (among them Magical Pills, who is helping me with lore and technology in the universe) have noted that they would sacrifice a medium laser in favour of more specialised roles within a lance.

@Nihtgenga (how do you pronounce that, curiously?)
You're right, it's not what a reasonable tactic for CW should be, regardless of it's efficiency and effectiveness in MWO's current TDM and point-capture modes.

More intelligent piloting and role-focused gameplay, which is something PGI had stated as a goal of the design of this game (That, aside from a few matches, I generally find enjoyable), is something that I think the initial suggestion regarding indirect fire would help. I'm not saying NERF LRMS!~ while beating a ladle on a saucepan, here, I'm fine with the damage laid out per missile (though, obviously, hit detection should be fixed so the actual value of missiles is recorded as a hit), their direct-fire accuracy and ability to deny territory in both the tabletop and this game are incredibly valuable, even from the position of someone who's more often on the receiving end of them than actively using them.

What I'm trying to suggest is a change that makes the role of spotters more valuable, and encourages more exchanging of communications and information between lance and company members, as well as providing usefulness to the NARC beacon. And, should it be a good idea, perhaps providing the command console with functionality similar to the C3 master system, giving it a use as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 10 January 2014 - 01:50 AM, said:

Really? The spotter needs to designate with the R key?

I thought the firer needed to select the target ?

If the spotter can see 3 mechs grouped up, can not the firer make his choice of which target he wants to hit? Or does he just fire and the spotter designates?

I always choose my own targets when I (rarely) play an indirect LRM carrier, or I get my own locks and just bomb away.

Well it would make it so the "Spotter" is actually spotting. Hitting a single key is not really asking to much.

[Nihtgenga]

Houseckat, on 10 January 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

While this is a good explanation for the sensor-sharing abilities of mechs, the item itself is not present in the game.

The right question to ask then (to PGI) would be: Why isn't it present? creating an item which is not visible (= no need to design any graphics) and does not require completely new mechanics to be implemented into the game should not be a too high development ressource drain.

Quote

@Nihtgenga (how do you pronounce that, curiously?)

It's an early medieval expression, so it probably can be pronounced with norse, early english, friesian, saxon or even alemannic dialectic tint. It refers to a frightening etheral being from old heathen tales, walking/riding/striding through night, shadows and fog. "niht" = "Night", "genga" = (german "Gaenger") "Walker".

Quote

You're right, it's not what a reasonable tactic for CW should be, regardless of it's efficiency and effectiveness in MWO's current TDM and point-capture modes.

Probelm is, there have been and still are SEVERAL such "tactics" viable in MWO, mostly coming from what I would call lack of strategical overview at PGI. Maybe it's coming from a lack of ressources or from errors made in the early project stages, but unfortunately they seemingly don't want to even acknowledge it to be any issue to this "thinking mans shooter". So my fear is, that they won't pay attention to that EVER.

Quote

What I'm trying to suggest is a change that makes the role of spotters more valuable, and encourages more exchanging of communications and information between lance and company members, as well as providing usefulness to the NARC beacon. And, should it be a good idea, perhaps providing the command console with functionality similar to the C3 master system, giving it a use as well.

That's where I fully agree. There is more than just one possibility of doing and balancing it, and probably some die-hard enthusiasts would even contribute not just ideas, but even many hours of bugfixing/adjustment tryout time on PGIs test servers. I'd love to see such coop-empowering changes, as they will not just increase diversity on the battlefield. I even believe that such changes could diminish quite naturally the "meta-builders", as there would be much more options than today to counter a certain "OP" build.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nihtgenga, on 10 January 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

It's an early medieval expression, so it probably can be pronounced with norse, early english, friesian, saxon or even alemannic dialectic tint. It refers to a frightening etheral being from old heathen tales, walking/riding/striding through night, shadows and fog. "niht" = "Night", "genga" = (german "Gaenger") "Walker".

So...

[Nihtgenga]

There are many interpretations, how it might be looking. However, I'd REALLY like to have my PPC loads look like that!

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

When you can see a mech and nobody has it selected you will see a hollow red triangle over it. If you see a contact with a solid triangle that means somebody has it selected. Indirect fire is only possible against selected targets, so you should see a bunch of filled triangles when toggling among potential indirect targets.

TAG is pretty good and can be deadly in the right hands. What it mostly needs right now is the ability to toggle it on and off rather than having it only fire during a trigger pull.

NARC should do one thing and one thing only, and that is to provide a target for indirect fire. It should provide this target regardless of LoS. The beacon should travel fast and straight when fired to make it a bit easier to use, and should last for sixty seconds or until the stuck location is destroyed. ECM should not eliminate the beacon, rather it should reduce its broadcast range so only mechs within, say, 500m can detect the target.

Artemis is probably okay right now, though it would be sort of nice for it to give SRMs a limited homing capability (not with a lock-on like SSRMs, but more an independent guidance package that makes them turn slightly toward the nearest enemy in their path).

If you have problems with LRMs right now, most of the time the issue is that there is an enemy light with TAG skulking around behind your group and you aren't using cover or AMS sufficiently. Less often the TAG light will be on voice comms with an LRM lance, which makes it far more difficult to evade. They can spread out and get one launcher around cover that you may be using to protect against the others, and no matter where you move they can get an angle on you. In that case going after the spotter is important, and AMS is even more vital than it otherwise would be.

[wanderer]

Houseckat, on 10 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

Like I said, I was relatively angry when I originally posted, and it's my general field of experience playing with friends in a pre-made (As it's too awkward to convince other players to designate in chat sometimes) That we'd actively designate targets. The few times I have used LRMs indirectly in PUGs by myself, I've only ever had one or two actively targeted hostiles to select from.

And this is the point. LRMs are abysmal in PUG play unless the person is actively not defending against them and you get the firing solution yourself. They're great in premades, because a target is not only locked, it's frequently spotted from multiple angles, if not outright TAG-painted.

NARC will be the least used tool in the game until it's given more of a purpose. It should, quite simply act to negate LOS issues as long as the target is NARC-podded, and the effect should last until the location NARCed takes significant damge (in other words, no machine-gun-scrubbing the pod off.). Give it a bright red "flash" effect similar to the old Atlas eyes, and until it's gone, the 'Mech is -always- considered to be in LOS, although if it packs ECM other 'Mechs in the "shroud" are not unless they too are NARCed. Any hit of more than .5 damage would have a chance to destroy a NARC pod in that location.

This would mean the ECM "cloak" effect has a counter and simultaneously gives every LRM carrier in the area a clear, steady firing solution to rain death on- of course, cover would still be the bane of missiles, or a good AMS umbrella...

[Oppresor]

I have temporarily removed the TAG unit from my Recon Spider. It was a hard decision because I am 100% behind the idea of a dedicated Recon unit, however the deciding factor was that in the last 20 missions in which I have run the Spider, not one other unit has fired LRM's on a target that I have maintained a TAG beam on for over 1 minute real time. This is after I have announced that I will be using TAG at the start of the mission, so it's not a case of not knowing that TAG was available.

I will continue to use the 5K as Recon, but go back to the original idea of calling in Target grids, strengths and types via the chatline. I have also gone over to the idea of fitting an Artillery Strike Module, so can help with opportune targets.

Light Recon - Life at the Edge