40 replies to this topic

[TheMadTypist]

I actually like your idea of streaks that don't use LRM style lockons, but only fire if you have reticule on target. Maybe make it so that they track to the specific component clicked on as best they can, to reward accuracy on the pilot's part while maintaining the established "always hit" efficiency of the Streak family. That way, they don't have to create two differing lockon markers for 'mechs carrying both LRM's and SSRM's, and SSRM's no longer benefit from forgiving LRM style locks at brawling distances. In fact, I think this is how MW4 handled streaks.

I feel like a lot of people will get sidetracked about the whole "TT" thing, rather than argue against the proposed system itself though.

[Terror Teddy]

Yokaiko, on 04 March 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Yeah, you can block with you arms, but you can also game the launch si they arc around.

Now I suddenly wish for a "Block" command to put my Centurions shield in front of my torso or just my arm in front of it.

[Strum Wealh]

Comassion, on 04 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

There's a misconception on the forums that in TT, 'streaks always hit'.

This is a half-truth. The real truth is that streaks miss and hit with the same hit rate as a standard SRM. The difference is that when streaks miss in TT, they don't fire, which preserves your heat and ammo - the pilot still needs to roll to hit, and the end result is that Streaks don't hit more often than SRMS do (every missile in the group hits rather than rolling on the chart, so they do slightly more damage over time).

What we've got now is auto-hit streaks, and that needs to change. There needs to be a way to 'miss' with streaks that doesn't involve them firing.

The above-quoted post is only a little off.

• "A player attempting to lock a Streak missile on target must make a standard to-hit roll during the Weapon Attack Phase as if he were firing a standard SRM. If successful, the player immediately fires his Streak SRM at the locked-on target. All Streak missiles automatically hit (no roll on the Cluster Hits Table is required), and the player rolls as normal to determine the hit locations. If the roll fails, the player does not achieve a lock and so does not fire the SRMs or build up any heat. The player must roll for a targeting lock each turn, even if he achieved a lock in the previous turn. The player must make a separate to-hit roll for each individual Streak system being fired." (Total Warfare, pg. 138)
  
• "...while a Streak SRM launcher applies the damage from each missile to a separate location, it does not apply its damage using the Cluster Hits Table; if the to-hit roll succeeds, all the missiles strike the target." (Total Warfare, pg. 116)
  
• "Developed as a means of conserving ammunition, the Streak system literally refuses to fire unless all of the launcher’s tubes simultaneously achieve a “hard lock” on their target." (TechManual, pg. 230)

Under normal operations, using the Streak system has exactly two outcomes:

• the launcher achieves the necessary "hard lock" (in TT terms: the to-hit roll succeeds) and all missiles fire (expending ammo and generating heat in the process), in which case they are guaranteed to strike the target somewhere (in TT terms, the player does not need to consult the Cluster Hits Table to determine if the missiles hit, but they still need to consult the Hit Location Table to see where the missiles hit)
  
• the launcher fails to achieve the necessary "hard lock" (in TT terms: the to-hit roll fails), in which case none of the missiles fire (with no ammo expended and no heat generated)

The exception to this occurs when, and only when, the Streaks are used against a target within a hostile Angel ECM (not Guardian, but Angel; neither Guardian not its Clan-built counterpart have this effect) field, in which case, using the Streak system has exactly two outcomes:

• the launcher fails to achieve the necessary "hard lock" (in TT terms: the to-hit roll fails), in which case none of the missiles fire (with no ammo expended and no heat generated)
  
• the launcher achieves the necessary "hard lock" (in TT terms: the to-hit roll succeeds), and "on a successful Streak launcher attack, the attacker must roll on the Cluster table as though the launcher were a standard (non-Streak) model" (Tactical Operations, pg. 279)

If we're going by what the TT rules actually say, then they explicitly state, more than once, that

• Streaks must achieve a lock to fire, and will literally refuse to fire at all unless and until such lock has been established - they can never, ever be dumb-fired (though, Angel ECM can make them "go dumb" in-flight, after they've already been locked and fired).
  
• Any Streak missiles that are fired (unless in the presence of an Angel ECM field) will strike the target somewhere - spread might prevent them from all hitting the same location, but they can and must necessarily hit somewhere (with Paul and one of the other Devs (Thomas?) stating last November that they had expanded the targeting criteria to include limb joints).

[MayGay]

Syllogy, on 04 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

If you insist on having TT rules, then I will insist that all weapons have a standard 10 second cooldown.

problem is that the entire game is heavily based on the TT and was intended to be a 3d sim of the TT and if you don't want to play a sim of the TT go play WoT WoW CoD or some other lame shooter and let us have Battletech lovers have our 'mech sim

[wwiiogre]

Syllogy,

MWO is based on Table Top rules, all of it. If you insist on not having table top rules then go play Mech Assault. Since that game has no basis in BT or the table top rules. Or perhaps you should play robotech or some other giant stompy robot game. Your use of that argument is silly and wrong on many levels.

Mech Warrior Online is based on table top, the biggest issues MWO faces at the moment other than netcode are the issues caused when PGI decided to break away from table top and make up their own rules. This has caused huge balance issues each time it has been done.

ECM is the most abused over powered future weapon system in the game, nothing like current timeline ecm
SSRM another overpowered over used easy button that acts nothing like the tabletop
Hard Points not a part of battletech at all and leads to boating and abuse and really is a limited omni (clan) before its time
Matchmaking - still seeing matches with 300 tons difference in weight and no difference in skill. This is a huge problem
Premades - Still seeing 2 x 4mans together against 8 random pugs, still a problem, but elo is working, but slowly
BAP- not useful, unlike in table top where it helps against ECM/ghost targeting
Command Console- Another item that helps against ECM/ghost targeting no use yet, hope something comes soon

They have got some things fairly right, the heat system and rate of fire and armor feel right at the moment. The maps are great, and I even like both types of play at the moment. Maps are to small, but they are adding larger ones as we go. Map rotation should be part of elo so you don't end up on the same map over and over and over again. Played river city and forest colony exclusively yesterday. Second time I logged on I got caustic over and over and then river city over and over. Please, PGI put something in the matchmaking that does not allow you to play the same map twice in a row and for sure not 4 out of 5, etc. And River city and River city night are the same map same as frozen city/night and forest colony/snow.

Chris

[FupDup]

James Griffin, on 04 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

problem is that the entire game is heavily based on the TT and was intended to be a 3d sim of the TT and if you don't want to play a sim of the TT go play WoT WoW CoD or some other lame shooter and let us have Battletech lovers have our 'mech sim

This game does not simulate TT. The most blatant evidence of this is our camera view: in MWO, we see from the cockpit of our battlemech. In TT, you see everything from above at varying angles. You can also control more than one unit in TT (not in MWO). The list goes on for pages and pages. MWO is based in BT lore but that's different than being a TT sim.


That stuff aside, what's the point of making a simulator for TT when TT already exists? No simulator ever made matches the original.

Edited by FupDup, 04 March 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Taemien]

We can't use TT rules as a straight rule. Otherwise every weapon would require a weapon lock to fire and the system would determine if you hit or not. Thats not very fun. And that is NOT what MechWarrior is. You can play MegaMek if you want that style of play.

[Lukoi Banacek]

James Griffin, on 04 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

problem is that the entire game is heavily based on the TT and was intended to be a 3d sim of the TT and if you don't want to play a sim of the TT go play WoT WoW CoD or some other lame shooter and let us have Battletech lovers have our 'mech sim

I wasn't aware the Devs stated it was meant to be a 3D sim of TT rules. Is there a post of that somewhere. I was under the distinct impression that it was meant to be a MW online gaming experience with direct ties to the original game and franchise universe/intellectual property. That's NOT the same thing as a 3D sim of TT rules.

Btw, I too am a BT lover and do not for one minute think that anything too close to TT rules will translate well here at all.

They've already clearly sped the game up from the 10s (nonsense) of TT.
They've doubled the armor.
They've heavily tweaked ECM to be something rather differen than the original.
They've made it clear future EW tweaks will not necessarily be to ECM (although they might be).
They've add counter ECM measures to PPC/ERPPC.
They've changed the heat, damage values of weapons (most notably the SRM/LRM).
And the list goes on.

Evidence would suggest the game is NOT in fact intended to be a 3d sim or direct translation of the TT game.

So please, if you want a direct TT translation, go play MekaMek in Java online and let us BattleTech lovers have our actual Mech Sim and not some dysfunctional version of a table top dice game that's turn-based.

Edited by Lukoi, 04 March 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[Garfuncle]

On top of changing the ssrm lock mechanic away from lrms crank down the turn rate of the missiles. Not how they leave the tube but how they track targets so mechs moving at high speeds and are juking are harder to hit. Like how a lot of missiles work in the Armored Core games. Accurate, but good piloting can dodge them.

[topgun505]

First off. SRMs in general do too much damage. They currently do 20% more than their TT counterparts.

Bear in mind LRMs do too much as well. However, in the case of LRMs the designers increased the damage on purpose because intervening terrain tends to play a large role in mitigating their damage.

SRMs on the other hand are used at such short range that both terrain and missile spread are completely negated so there is no need for a damage buff.

Another point for SSRMs is they can be fired at around 90 degrees off-bore which is just nuts. Their firing parameters need to be restricted greatly.

In TT you had to do a roll to-hit each time you fired them. Translated to MWO this means you should have to re-lock the missiles for each salvo.

Lastly. I agree that current lock mechanism is FAR too forgiving. You need to keep the crosshairs on the target and keep it there.

Edited by topgun505, 04 March 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[MightyBolamite]

Comassion, on 04 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

The other option is to have Streaks not lock at all. Instead, when you click the fire button, the weapon cooldown starts, but they'll only fire if you actually clicked on a 'mech. If you clicked on empty space, they don't fire (but are still on cooldown to prevent repeat click-until-you-hit). The main advantage this gives you is that you don't need to lead your target and they're still auto-hit when they fire, but it adds a much greater element of skill to the weapon while still being very dangerous and effective.

Thoughts?

I actually really like this. It is relatively easy to implement and takes care of many of the problems I think there are with streaks.

Roughneck45, on 04 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I don't think ECM is OP, but the way streaks, ECM, and netcode all interact with eachother for lights is just toxic right now.

I agree. If above is done and collisions get back in the game, lights should be golden. The LRM guys will still be upset with ECM though.

[Metafox]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

EyeOne: Will you consider changing the lock on mechanic for the SSRM2s to make it require more attention and aim from the pilot?

A: We review these concepts regularly. Right now, no plans.

Apparently they think that the streak locking system is fine? I sure hope they're just being coy.

As for the whole TT thing, the OP was using TT as an example of a balanced streak system, not as law. He specifically suggests that the game break TT rules by allowing streaks to miss. If people must make silly anti-TT posts, please consider making these posts on a thread where it's more relevant.

[Livebait]

My beef with Ssrm's is that they fly at bee line right out of the launcher straight to the enemy mech. There needs to be a flight path introduced into the weapon before it makes an attack run on an enemy mech.

If LRM's have a flight profile before they hit, so should SSRM's.

[EyeOne]

Metafox, on 04 March 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Apparently they think that the streak locking system is fine? I sure hope they're just being coy.

As for the whole TT thing, the OP was using TT as an example of a balanced streak system, not as law. He specifically suggests that the game break TT rules by allowing streaks to miss. If people must make silly anti-TT posts, please consider making these posts on a thread where it's more relevant.

Yeah, I didn't get the answer I wanted on that one. The current system is laughably bad.

If you are in a light mech without streaks and you get the attention of another light with streaks you might as well lay down at take it.

[Keisuke Nagisa]

I also think that streaks shouldn't fire if they cant leave the launcher in a normal way. Once we get streak 4 and streak 6 the current system is going to show how bad it is.

Edited by Keisuke Nagisa, 04 March 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Keisuke Nagisa, on 04 March 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

I also think that streaks shouldn't fire if they cant leave the launcher in a normal way. Once we get streak 4 and streak 6 the current system is going to show how bad it is.

One thing that struck me how it is essentially impossble to avoid streaks once launched unless you are JUST bout to hide behind cover or very fast.

If an A1 Splatcat can use SSRM6 with an effective fit it will be a nightmare - and more if the A1 pilot faces ECM.

[Strum Wealh]

wwiiogre, on 04 March 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Hard Points not a part of battletech at all and leads to boating and abuse and really is a limited omni (clan) before its time

While the rest of the post is an interesting read, I (for whatever reason) feel that this point warrants particular attention.

Many people confuse the 'Mech construction rules with the 'Mech customization rules, often not realizing that the two are wholly separate things.

With regard to the latter, there are the "refit kits" described on pages 188-189 of Strategic Operations (one of BattleTech's four current core rulebooks).

• Class A: field refit kit allowing for replacement of a single already-present weapon with one of the same type (energy/ballistic/missile) and similar or lesser size (criticals)
  
• Class B: field refit kit allowing for replacement of a single already-present weapon with one of a different type (energy → ballistic or missile, ballistic → missile or energy, missile → energy or ballistic) and similar or lesser size (criticals)
  
• Class C: maintenance refit kit allowing for change of armor type and distribution, replacement of a single already-present weapon with one of a different type (energy → ballistic or missile, ballistic → missile or energy, missile → energy or ballistic) regardless of size, movement of a component (e.g. BAP, ECM, etc) to another location (e.g. RT → LT, or vice versa), addition or removal of ammunition bins, or addition or removal of a heat sink (but not a change of heat sink type)
  
• Class D: maintenance refit kit allowing for the addition of a new (not already-present) weapon or piece of equipment, a change of heat sink type, or a change of engine rating (e.g. increase 300 to 350, or vice versa) but not engine type (standard to XL, or vice versa)
  
• Class E: factory-level refit kit allowing for the installation of CASE or a change of myomer type
  
• Class F: factory-level refit kit allowing for a change in internal structure, engine, gyro, and cockpit types

The price of each kit is 1.10*(sum of prices of all components in the kit).
A field-level refit (Class A or can be carried out at a field base "with little or no access to support facilities".
A maintenance-level refit (Class C or D) "requires access to the equipment and resources found in the appropriate type of transport cubicle" (e.g. the transport bay on a DropShip).
A factory-level refit (Class E or F) "is a long and involved process that requires a production facility capable of producing the unit in question".

The notion of restricting what weapon changes one can make as a function of what facilities and refit kits one can access is not a particularly new one to BattleTech - StratOps was published in 2009, and the field refit kits (and the difficulties involved in customizing 'Mechs without them) are mentioned (albeit in passing and in fluff) on page 36 of BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare (which was published in 1994).

Moreover, the notion of hardpoints does not promote boating, outside of those chassis that were already boats (such as the HBK-4P and AWS-8Q and JR7-F being "energy boats", or the CPLT-A1 and CPLT-C4 being "missile boats") or those that would have been predisposed to it anyway (such as the Stalker - each implemented Stalker variant actually has only the minimum hardpoints needed for its canon armament, but Stalkers typically carry so many individual weapons of the same type as to be nearly boating anyway).
In a lot of other cases, the hardpoint system reduces or outright inhibits boating - the hardpoint system is the reason why one does not see Atlases running around pretending to be Annihilators or Thunder Hawks.

That being said, MWO's Mechlab is a little weird in that it can execute factory-level refits (e.g. exchange standard structure for Endo-Steel and vice versa, exchange a standard engine for an XL model and vice versa - both representing Class F factory-level refits) freely, but it cannot execute certain field-level refits (e.g. change an energy hardpoint into a ballistic (or missile) hardpoint on a 1-to-1 basis, or vice versa - representing a Class B field-level refit).

[Tombstoner]

Syllogy, on 04 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

If you insist on having TT rules, then I will insist that all weapons have a standard 10 second cooldown.

They are simply pointing out the difference between TT and whats implemented. a 10 second cool down on all weapons is accurate but boring. hence the speed up. and that is easily balanced with heat dissipation. not a OMG it's not TT complant.

for streaks all i think that needs to happen is simply double the time it takes to lock on, once fired reset the lock on time, re-target. always hits is the trade off for longer lock on times.

Edited by Tombstoner, 04 March 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

How to fix Streaks? Do this:

1 - Increase weapon cooldown timer.
2 - Force a new lock after each volley.
3 - Lower flight velocity a bit so AMS has more time to do its thing (the same might be true of standard SRMs, but since they're dumb-fire and don't need to maneuver I'd sort of prefer they stay at the current flight speed).

Making Streaks less of a high DPS option and making it more difficult to aim them will both help balance Streaks, but really the third option there is probably the best, since it rewards enemy players who brought the right equipment.

[Comassion]

I'd just like to clarify something - I'm not advocating for any sort of 'direct from TT translation'. I'm pointing out that in TT, the weapons were balanced moreso than in MWO - that is, MWO is giving Streaks more of an advantage than they have in TableTop while still having the same crit space and weight of the weapon system.

TT: Streak missiles have same hit rate as SRMs. You roll to fire for either system and the pilot has the same chance of hitting his target with an SRM or an SSRM. The benefit to streaks is that they don't fire when you miss, meaning your 'mech generates less heat and you can carry less ammo. Also, when streaks hit, all the missiles in the cluster hit, so you will hit with more missiles over time.

MWO: Streak missiles have 100% hit rate if you can maintain a lock, which is not difficult. SRMs must be aimed and thus have a much lower hit rate. For that extremely nice bonus, SSRMs don't weigh much more than SRMs, making them generally worth taking over SRMs.

Proposal: Do something to streaks which still makes them easier to hit with than SRMs, but still requires that the pilot employ their talents in order to hit their targets. Right now if you were to put two Ravens up against each other armed with only SSRMs, they'll simply beat the crap out of each other, and the 'winner' will take almost as much damage as the loser did, unless one pilot or the other is in the very top or bottom 5% of pilots. If you can roughly hold your cursor over a target, you're just as good with streaks as anyone else who uses them. Would I pay half a ton for my SSRM 2 to hit it's target every time? Sure thing.

Edited by Comassion, 04 March 2013 - 01:11 PM.