116 replies to this topic

[RedMercury]

TLDR: LRMs need to be viable direct fire weapons and marginal indirect fire weapons, which require good aim; SSRMs need to require good aim. Neither should require locks (red boxes of any sort). Changing LRMs and SSRMs in this way can allow the designers to balance ECM and other information warfare features without causing LRMs or SSRMs to worsen the game.

Preface: I'm not a table top player, but a MUXer. I do understand that a 3D battletech game is fundamentally different. This is intended to be an open ended discussion, though I will throw in my suggestions (details below). To make reading easier I'll organize my observations and suggestions separately.

1. The designers want to make the game competition-friendly;

2. One aspect of many competitive 3d shooters is the value given to hand -eye coordination ("aiming skill").

A difficult question is how to translate FASA rules for LRM and SSRM into a 3D real time game in a way that: (a) makes the weapon systems viable and useful, (b ) makes them "aiming skill" based. Since LRMs are intended to be used at long range, the missiles need to cover a long distance. This takes time, and mechs move, so hitting a moving target at long range isn't easy. Automatic guidance was the solution used by all Mechwarrior games after the first. (The unguided, slow-moving LRM5 on the Shadowhawk in the original Mechwarrior was feeble)

3. Achieving lock on is easy in terms of eye hand coordination. Maintaining lock on is trivial. There is little skill required. This means these weapons do not add much to the game from the competitive point of view. Nor is using these weapons very satisfying, since it is so easy.

4. Add the 1000m range for LRMs and their ability to fire on targets without line of sight, this makes them very effective ("LRMpacalypse") and one of the reasons why ECM is so popular. But note that ECM only affects LRMs though the locking mechanism.

5. One consideration is that, if LRMs' guidance and indirect fire capabilities are drastically changed, they will be at a large disadvantage compared to other current long range weapon systems, due to their slow travel speed. This will likely make LRMs much less used and reduce the richness of the game.

6. Related, the SSRM mechanics also have similar faults as the LRM mechanics: they do not require much aiming skill. Due to their highly effective homing mechanism, they are very effective against fast moving targets. This is another reason why ECM is so popular with recon mechs, and as a perverse consequence, why BAP is required for SSRM mechs.

7. The central flaw of the current LRM and SSRM system is that they basically guarantee hits if lock on is achieved (baring AMS and cover). In FASA Battletech, missiles are not guaranteed to hit; you need to roll dice. Since we do not use dice in a 3D shooter, we replace it with aim. However, the current lock-on mechanism is much too easy in terms of aim;

Worse, it is conflated with target locking, which is part of the information warfare aspect of the game. This sets up an entanglement with ECM in terms of play balancing, which restricts how the designers can implement or balance ECM and associated mechanics. This is all an unfortunate legacy (institutional inertia) of the bad design decisions made by the makers of Mechwarrior 2.

The above are my observations of the state of things, below are my suggestions:

I suggest changing the LRM mechanics in the following ways:

(A) Missiles do not require lock, nor do they benefit from lock. They are unguided. This makes aiming necessary.

(B ) Increase flight speed substantially. Perhaps to the same level as autocannons. This keeps LRMs viable as long range weapons. The speed can be modified by modules, quirks, etc. The speed can be a non-constant function of distance so that aiming at shorter ranges is still non-trivial, to preserve the long-range intention of the weapon system.

(C) flatten LRM trajectory. This makes aiming easier.

(D) for indirect fire, add a separate mode with a lofted and terminal-diving trajectory. The "fire control computer" needs a range estimate to set this trajectory. Allow the user to set this range by placing the targeting reticle on the ground and recording the range. There can be other ways to do this (modules? quirks? spotting?).

One benefit of this approach is that a smart pilot can fire indirect LRMs at positions where enemies are expected to be, without having to lock on.

(E) Limit all LRM range to 630 meters.

The intent of these suggestions is to keep LRMs viable, but not depend on the lock on mechanism. With these changes, LRMs can be effective long range, direct fire weapons against slow targets and marginally effective against fast targets at distance. How effective will depend on skill (which is good). LRMs can still be used as indirect fire, to enrich the game, to break standoffs, and to make spotting useful, but in a less effective manner. It will no longer be very effective as an indirect fire weapon against moving targets. This will prevent recon mechs from being destroyed by indirect fire LRMs, which enriches light-on-light combat. LRMs can still be used indirectly against moving targets, but again, skill will be required to lead. The proposed changes also add a new dimension by allowing indirect LRM fire against locations on the map, so that intelligent players can guess where targets are, or shoot at where the enemy is going to duck for cover. This adds depth to the game, though it makes the game more vulnerable to information-based ("xray vision") exploits. I do not address NARC and TAG here, but I think the advantages they give can be designed without too much difficulty around these mechanics.


I suggest changing SSRM mechanics in the following ways:

(F) After the fire button is pressed, there is a 1 second time period during which the reticle should be placed on the target. The duration can be tweaked, modified by modules, quirks, etc

(G) If the reticle is placed on the target mech for the entire duration, the SSRMs fire as guided missiles. This check must be strict, so it is similar in difficulty as hitting with a 1 second duration laser, which the designers seem to be satisifed with as a demonstration of aim. Again, this mechanism is orthogonal to target locking (in the current, "red boxes" sense).

(H) If the reticle was not placed on the target for the entire duration, the missiles do not fire, and the launcher must recharge. This is punishment for a miss and is inline with FASA rules.

(I) Strengthen missile guidance and agility to basically guarrantee hit if fired (unless AMS).

(J) Perhaps, make SSRMs target the target locations "painted" by the reticle during the targeting period, with number of missiles proportional to time. If the shooter was skilled enough to keep the reticle on one body location for the whole duration, all missiles would home in on that location. This rewards aim, but may be overpowered.

The intent of these changes is to make SSRMs effective while not requiring target locks as we currently have them. It is difficult to implement SSRMs without some form of guidance system. The problem is that guidance systems are automatic, which takes away from the aiming skill required. Thus the proposed changes require aiming skill to setup the guidance, where aiming skill is about as difficult as that required to use lasers. Basically, the changes are like a separate locking mechanism for SSRMs, unaffected by ECM, but is much more strict on both aim and timing, with punishment for missing.

[Vlad Ward]

This is a good read.

I like your SSRM tweaks. That would make the weapons a lot more fun to use.

As for your LRM suggestions, the direct fire mechanic is basically how I'd like to see MRMs introduced in the game. MRMs are unguided, mid-range direct-fire missiles. Implementing them in a fashion similar to Clan Ultra Autocannons would be great.

If PGI ever decides to implement MRMs, then I could see LRMs going the way of the indirect fire mechanic you mentioned. You'd basically treat them like artillery pieces, raining damage on a target area. I like it.

Mechanics like these would allow PGI to buff missiles to be in line with other weapon systems without completely breaking everything.

[El Bandito]

Just do it like how Mechwarrior 4 did.

LRMs -- Once locked, fire and forget--no need to keep the cursor on target. ECM will not counter lock, only increases lock time, and decreases target acquiring range.

SSRMs -- No locktime, but will try to home in and hit the location under the crosshair at the time of firing. Missile turn rate decreased.

There you go--no effing hard counters. The rest can be easily balanced with missile damage, or speed, or spread.

Edited by El Bandito, 29 August 2015 - 11:25 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Nah.

Locks and fire-and-forget are some of the biggest balance hurdles for missiles. Make them worth using, and people boating them are suddenly capable of insta-gibbing everyone by holding their mouse inside little red box.`

[El Bandito]

Vlad Ward, on 30 August 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

Nah.

Locks and fire-and-forget are some of the biggest balance hurdles for missiles. Make them worth using, and people boating them are suddenly capable of insta-gibbing everyone by holding their mouse inside little red box.`

They are guided missiles--they are supposed to have locks. ACs do insta-gibbing. PPCs do insta-gibbing. Gauss does insta-gibbing. LRMs--well they are gonna travel slowly and spread damage all around the enemy. In MW4, fire-and-forget LRMs and SSRMs were never as good as ERLL + Gauss poptarting. And as I said the missiles can be easily balanced with missile damage, or speed, or spread--as long as there are no hard counters. It is the current ECM, that is the biggest hurdle in missile balancing.

[Vlad Ward]

ECM? Nah.

Take it out or nerf it and they'd just end up decreasing per-missile damage in a hotfix because extreme range auto-aim weapons that don't even require LoS have no place in an FPS.

And MWO is built like an FPS.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 30 August 2015 - 06:00 PM.

[El Bandito]

Vlad Ward, on 30 August 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

ECM? Nah.

Take it out and they'd just end up decreasing per-missile damage in a hotfix because extreme range auto-aim weapons that don't even require LoS have no place in an FPS.

And MWO is built like an FPS.

It is Mechwarrior online. It is not supposed to be a CoD clone. As for indirect-fire, it can be balanced via extreme spread without LoS. And people should finally get a clue and equip AMS.

Edited by El Bandito, 30 August 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

There are different kinds of "weapon locks". One could design LRMs to be able to seek their own target without launcher assisted lock - I forgot the exact term but some poster have mentioned about this mechanism. You fire the LRMs on a piece of terrain or an infinite point and they will fly to that location until a foe present itself some distance away from the missiles and they will home to that target.

When this mechanism presents, assisted lock-on can only be achieved by TAGging or NARCing the target.

[Vlad Ward]

El Bandito, on 30 August 2015 - 06:00 PM, said:

It is Mechwarrior online. It is not supposed to be a CoD clone. As for indirect-fire, it can be balanced via extreme spread without LoS.

Doesn't matter what it's supposed to be.

It's a FPS. Present tense.

Existing LRM firing mechanics don't scale well. Present tense.

This guy's LRM mechanics sound more fun anyways.

[crashlogic]

I'm more on El Bandito's side. To me the OP seems to want to fix what isn't really broken. I like playing an LRM boat, because indirect fire support can really help the rest of the team by punishing poptarts or forcing snipers off the backside of a ridge.
Usually people griping about LRMS really just don't like the weapons because they don't fit with their idea of the meta. The OP is no exception...he thinks the LRMS are easy and boring. I doubt he has logged anywhere close to the kind of time I have spent in LRM boats, however, and I find neither to be the case. There are lots of counters to lrms: ECM AMS and simply moving - the last being the most effective. But snipers and pop-tarters don't like this because LRMS force them to give up good positions, cooperate with ecm mechs, or die. Yet they see no problem in the fact that my mech can be cored from 1200+ meters by four shots from gauss rifles before I am even in range. And mroe realisitically, I am fighting a missile boat at the 3-400 meter range to ensure hits.
If I were going to change anything about the missile system, I would have tag and narc completely counter ecm, so my teammates and I would have reasons to cooperate. Basically my sense of mechwarrior is that if you get narced, you need to bury yourself behind cover or die. But hey, missiles are my favorite meta, untill we can have hatchets and do physical attacks at close range.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Vlad Ward, on 30 August 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

Make them worth using`

cant have that

[Kjudoon]

If you get rid of indirect fire, I want all LRMs to move at 800m/s. Not as fast as an LB10x, but not as slow as an AC20. You're going to get rid of it's major advantage, the ability to go over obstacles in an arc, you get speed to the face. You get rid of guidance too, I want perfect convergence. Your Double Gauss/ERPPC's got nothing on an LRM60 barrage at 800m/s that hits the same compnent, or at least in an LBx pattern.

Do that, sure, let's trade guidance and indirect fire in for that. Bring it, suckers!

New meta, 15 minutes after patch is downloaded and it's no worse than what we have now.

[Chados]

I'd hate to see LRMs and SSRMs become "must have l33t tw1tch sk1llz L2P" weapons. Right now they are easy to learn the basics of, but hard to master and play well long term. They reward patience and strategy, and assuming you can get a lock give effective counter to the poptarters and snipers who shoot you in the back from ranges you can't even see where the shot came from. They give people who can't see enemy mechs at 800meters, or who don't have the frame rates to run circles with the Arctic Cheetah and duel with Captain Tryhard and his effervescent sidekick Metagirl at 1,350 meters, a chance at least to get into the game.

Turn them into full time "lern 2 a1m n00b" weapons, and see new players rage quit and go play something else in droves. Those with elite skills already have laser vomit to run circles with and snipe at extreme range. You need at least one weapons system that has an entry level learning curve via the lock mechanic but retains features like blindfire and missile bending that reward practice and skill with learning and dedication.

If the devs decide to adopt suggestions like this, I'd recommend that advanced zoom be deleted from the game, that gauss rifles be disallowed for mechs lighter than 50 tons and more than one be disallowed for anything lighter than 90 tons, that there be a Cbill penalty for kills made over 800 meters away, that sized hardpoints be introduced, and that ECM be disallowed for any mech over 45 tons.

Edited by Chados, 31 August 2015 - 02:58 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Chados, remember, without guidance ECM is near pointless. I guess that's one way to deal with it.

[Vlad Ward]

This is a competitive PvP online first person shooter. Aiming kinda comes with the territory.

I mean, you can keep the super nerfed auto-aim weapons we have now, but they'll never be worth taking outside of the underhive. That's the price they pay for being auto-aim.

A different launching/operating mechanic that requires aiming to use correctly is the only way you'd ever see LRMs brought up to a level where they have a reason to exist in mid or high level play.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 31 August 2015 - 03:05 AM.

[Chados]

And another thing: The meta rewards sniping and we're seeing more and more clutter in maps like Forest Colony and River City to try to force brawling and less sniping. Give unskilled underhive noobs like me a way reliably to facetank and live more than 30 seconds (hint: Make the Atlas a lot harder to kill inside 270 meters) and I'd drop LRMs like an old boyfriend and embrace the tank. I've tanked in every non-fight simulator game I've played except this one. I can't tank in this game because you die in microseconds as soon as you can be seen by the advanced zoom poptarters covered by ECM and radar deprivation, from a klick away. I quit World of Warcraft years ago because they nerfed protection warriors so bad that you can't tank damage without three healers focused on you, because your TtK is sky-high and your protections got reduced to nothing. There's no serious facetanking in MWO. If there were, the unskilled would have a route into the game, a mechanic that's easy to learn...very difficult to master...like old style prot warriors were in WoW. I wouldn't play WoW today if I was paid to do it, it is zero fun because the WoW meta is geared to distance DoT and high DpS AoE, and healers have been nerfed.

Edited by Chados, 31 August 2015 - 03:38 AM.

[Scar Glamour]

Players in MWO come in two types. There are those that complain that LRM requires no skill and is OP and there are others who actually know how to play on LRM boat.

LRMs can carry a game, but it largely depends on team tactics. If your PUG decides to fight on an unfavourable ground or you try to reposition yourself for a better line of fire and run into enemy lights, you're done for. Poptarting and gauss vomiting, on the other hand, gives a much more reliable result.

[BigJimJack]

There is nothing wrong with the LRM mechanic as is. In high level tier play with all the ECM running around and skilled players who know when to duck out of the open will make a LRM pilot have to come out with tag or narc to get his locks. Then HE is out in the open with them. So to me it is a fair trade off. I run with TAG and Artemis to make my locks faster, but if the guy on the other end is smart he will pop up.. hit me and then duck down long before my missiles arrive. It forces me as a lrm pilot to maneuver into a more advantages position to make my locks more effective. Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. I think to the OP posts though this would apply to the entry level games where play is chaotic and unorganized so yes LRM's can seem overpowered.

Edited by BigJimJack, 31 August 2015 - 06:16 AM.

[Hotthedd]

The OP's Streak solution is the best I've heard.

I like most of the LRM solution, with the exception that I believe they should be able to be guided by the pilot without needing a separate mode, and there is no need to reduce their range.

The current lock-on, fire and forget mechanic is sloppy and lazy. It makes boating the best option for missiles, and has given us broken ECM mechanics (which has led to broken TAG and BAP mechanics).

Fix LRMs (and SSRMs) and the fix for ECM becomes so much easier. Then BAP, TAG, Artemis, etc. can be tweaked to work the way they are SUPPOSED to. Right now everything is just a hard counter for something else.

[Arctourus]

SRMS and MRMs and rockets all required aiming. LRMs and streaks had locks. That's the difference in the weapon systems. The way they lock could be tweaked, certainly, but the fact that they do lock needs to remain a staple of the weapons system.