114 replies to this topic

[Symbiodinium]

I think the OP's mechanism is too complicated (no, I don't know how the TT lore says they work, nor do I care). Just reduce the turn radius of the missile in flight so they aren't as maneuverable and it's possible for them to miss (that is, you should be aiming at last somewhat near the target or they won't correct their flight path enough). That's a simple fix that makes streaks require at least a bit of attention to use.

[focuspark]

Macheiron, on 05 April 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Clearly SSRMs need a separate lock mechanic from LRMs. However, I can't sign off on a laser designator as that's Artemis VI or TAG. With that in mind, what about a multi-lock system similar to what's used in Armored Core?

What I am proposing is a system that allows for each Missile to lock, and have an indicator on the hud. Thus you can fire as many or as few of your SSRMs as you need to. Naturally there would need to be a pretty fast lock-decay, with a short delay before it takes effect (maybe 1/4 second). This would also mean that every launcher you have in the group would attempt to fire, and any missiles not locked would not fire and the launchers would all recycle. At this point, locks must be reacquired, rinse, repeat.

Technically TAG and Narc should have no effect on Streaks, so perhaps this system i've proposed could work out.

I don't think you understand my proposal. I'm not suggesting the use of TAG or an actual laser lock on system. The "laser" is just UX for how the lock on works. Basically, you have to keep your sites on the target long enough to get a lock then the missiles fire the moment the lock is achieved. This prevents holding of lock-on acquisitions using targeting data from allies for lock-on acquisitions, and disassociates LRM from SSRM lock-on mechanics. Most importantly, it adds a level of necessary skill to SSRM.

It also meets cannon requirements that SSRM only fire and will hit if a "to-hit roll" is successful.

Symbiodinium, on 05 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

I think the OP's mechanism is too complicated (no, I don't know how the TT lore says they work, nor do I care). Just reduce the turn radius of the missile in flight so they aren't as maneuverable and it's possible for them to miss (that is, you should be aiming at last somewhat near the target or they won't correct their flight path enough). That's a simple fix that makes streaks require at least a bit of attention to use.

Turn radius has jack to do with how SSRM work. They do what ever is necessary to hit once a lock-on is achieved. The visualization of that "successful to-hit roll" is what you see doing "impossible" things. The mechanic needs to change to fix the missiles - additionally, the current setup requires zero skill to use making it an anathema to the game.

[Mechafruit]

This is a great idea, it actually gives lights without ECM a chance to dodge SSRMs! I support it.

[Cyke]

Focuspark, I suggest that for purposes of clarity, instead of referring to it as a "laser", just put it this way:
"The crosshair needs to be on the target when you pull the trigger."

If it's on target, it locks on and the missiles fire with tracking.
If it's off target, it doesn't lock and doesn't fire. When this happens, I suggest making the launcher go into it's cooldown cycle (even though it doesn't fire).

[zorak ramone]

The OP's idea is excellent and deserves to be on the first page.

Reasons why the OP's ideas are a good way to fix streaks:
-Streaks would require aiming for each shot
-The aiming required would be comparable to that required for firing a laser ... but no points for partial "hits"
-A successful "hit" would still result in all missiles hitting and a "miss" would result in no missiles hitting and no ammo expended (just like CBT)
-This system eliminates the whole "impossible angles" problem of SSRMs

[focuspark]

Cyke, on 06 April 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

Focuspark, I suggest that for purposes of clarity, instead of referring to it as a "laser", just put it this way:
"The crosshair needs to be on the target when you pull the trigger."

If it's on target, it locks on and the missiles fire with tracking.
If it's off target, it doesn't lock and doesn't fire. When this happens, I suggest making the launcher go into it's cooldown cycle (even though it doesn't fire).

I did say "targeting beam" to avoid the word laser. The reason I'd like to see the actual beam projected is because I feel each launcher should lock separately - this way launchers in the arms get a benefit from "arm swing".

zorak ramone, on 08 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

The OP's idea is excellent and deserves to be on the first page.

Reasons why the OP's ideas are a good way to fix streaks:
-Streaks would require aiming for each shot
-The aiming required would be comparable to that required for firing a laser ... but no points for partial "hits"
-A successful "hit" would still result in all missiles hitting and a "miss" would result in no missiles hitting and no ammo expended (just like CBT)
-This system eliminates the whole "impossible angles" problem of SSRMs

Thanks

[Orzorn]

HarmAssassin, on 01 April 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

2. Don't allow streaks on mechs that equip an ECM.

That's only an issue because of exclusivity. The OP's suggestion removes exclusivity.

I agree with the premise of the idea, that SSRMs should require more effort to get a "lock", and that they shouldn't be so insanely easy to keep locked.

That's really their main issue, not so much their damage (Although the way they tend to attack the center torso can be frustrating).

I also agree with suggestions to not call it a "laser". Simply saying "keep the crosshair over the target" is good enough, and also lines up better with past suggestions (including my own) to make SSRMs not need to rely on radar locks like they do now. They should be based on visuals. Currently, if an enemy is behind cover, you can get an SSRM lock. That doesn't make sense, considering SSRMs were made to be fired only when a hit is guaranteed.

Edited by Orzorn, 09 April 2013 - 08:47 AM.

[Orzorn]

focuspark, on 09 April 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

I feel each launcher should lock separately - this way launchers in the arms get a benefit from "arm swing".

That's a cool idea, because it would also emphasis even more the ammo saving capabilities of SSRMs.

Say I have a mech with 3 SSRMs. One on each arm and one in the head, for instance. I'm standing with my right arm blocked by a building. I see an enemy mech.

The two SSRMs with clearance see the target, and okay a firing. The third, however, is behind a building. It prevents itself from firing. You stream off 4 SSRMs and thus save 2 ammo, as, under the current system, the third WOULD have been fired and you would have wasted 2 shots by having them hit the building.

So not only is your suggestion in the OP good because it reduces SSRM exclusivity for ECM, it also increases the skill required to use them without decreasing their power, as well it also gives additional benefits such as the one I mentioned above.

As far as I can see, this solution is superior to the current system.

[zorak ramone]

Orzorn, on 09 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

I also agree with suggestions to not call it a "laser". Simply saying "keep the crosshair over the target" is good enough, and also lines up better with past suggestions (including my own) to make SSRMs not need to rely on radar locks like they do now. They should be based on visuals. Currently, if an enemy is behind cover, you can get an SSRM lock. That doesn't make sense, considering SSRMs were made to be fired only when a hit is guaranteed.

Well maybe it should work like this:

When you hold the trigger down, and its on target, it shows the little locking animation that currently plays whenever your reticule is over the target ... only now, it only continues to lock if your reticule is over the target. If you move it off, it starts to expand, just like when you start to loose lock with LRMs/current SSRMs.

The implementation is still the same as the OP suggested (hold trigger while reticule over target), but the visuals are similar to other missiles: For LRMs, you hold reticule over the target box and wait for lock to pull trigger. For SSRMs, you hold trigger with the reticule directly on target to get a lock, and missiles fire automatically when lock is achieved.

This would give the SSRMs familiar visuals, give the player feedback on whether their on target and how long till their missiles fire, and it would eliminate the need for some kind of "targeting laser" visual.

[blinkin]

zorak ramone, on 09 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Well maybe it should work like this:

When you hold the trigger down, and its on target, it shows the little locking animation that currently plays whenever your reticule is over the target ... only now, it only continues to lock if your reticule is over the target. If you move it off, it starts to expand, just like when you start to loose lock with LRMs/current SSRMs.

The implementation is still the same as the OP suggested (hold trigger while reticule over target), but the visuals are similar to other missiles: For LRMs, you hold reticule over the target box and wait for lock to pull trigger. For SSRMs, you hold trigger with the reticule directly on target to get a lock, and missiles fire automatically when lock is achieved.

This would give the SSRMs familiar visuals, give the player feedback on whether their on target and how long till their missiles fire, and it would eliminate the need for some kind of "targeting laser" visual.

you should add this to the hoard of threads about streak fixing. this is a good idea and different enough to warrant it's own thread with feedback.

[Orzorn]

zorak ramone, on 09 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

This would give the SSRMs familiar visuals, give the player feedback on whether their on target and how long till their missiles fire, and it would eliminate the need for some kind of "targeting laser" visual.

Once again, I don't believe OP wanted an actual targetting laser, he used that as a (poor) way to understand what he wanted to have happen. If anything, I imagined it as an invisible laser drawn from your weapon to the target, not as an actual laser.

Personally, I'd like for the circle crosshair to change to a square when a lock is achieved, in order to separate SSRM locks and LRMs locks. That's why I'm opposed to using the large circle we have right now. It forces LRM and SSRM locks to co-exist when I believe they should not. An LRM lock should not equate to an SSRM lock, because SSRMs should only be firing when a hit is guaranteed. A mech being indirectly targeting behind a hill 500 meters away is not a guaranteed hit. SSRMs should have separate mechanics.

[focuspark]

zorak ramone, on 09 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Well maybe it should work like this:

When you hold the trigger down, and its on target, it shows the little locking animation that currently plays whenever your reticule is over the target ... only now, it only continues to lock if your reticule is over the target. If you move it off, it starts to expand, just like when you start to loose lock with LRMs/current SSRMs.

The implementation is still the same as the OP suggested (hold trigger while reticule over target), but the visuals are similar to other missiles: For LRMs, you hold reticule over the target box and wait for lock to pull trigger. For SSRMs, you hold trigger with the reticule directly on target to get a lock, and missiles fire automatically when lock is achieved.

This would give the SSRMs familiar visuals, give the player feedback on whether their on target and how long till their missiles fire, and it would eliminate the need for some kind of "targeting laser" visual.

Nearly identical to the 'targeting beam' approach, but different animation. Only major difference I see is that with the targeting beam, each launcher needs to target separately (at the same time) just like firing multiple lasers does. With the single reticle, all launchers lock on from the same point and arm swing helps all launcher equally regardless of where they're mounted.

[Falconic]

Why not make the ssrms like the ones in MW4 where if your reticle is red the SSRMs fires locked on at the part of the mech you aimed at and just remove the option to fire without a red reticle.

[Eddrick]

I prefer missiles requiering a new lock every time they are fired. Not the best balancing method. But, it should be easy to make, potentualy slows DPS, makes them more difficult to use, and gives a bigger reason to use spoters for indirect fire.

[CancR]

Eddrick, on 09 April 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

I prefer missiles requiering a new lock every time they are fired. Not the best balancing method. But, it should be easy to make, potentualy slows DPS, makes them more difficult to use, and gives a bigger reason to use spoters for indirect fire.

this is a good, cannon approach to streaks,which doesn't go far enough.
Missiles should spread like crazy. I dont see why that can't come out in a clusters like reg srms, and seek that way. It would cause more of a diverse damage rather then a ct homming CoD weapon

[Charles Seneca]

focuspark, on 02 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Actually, this is how my idea started but there's a logic flaw in it: what is to stop people from spamming the fire button until they got a lock and fire? If all you need to do is button mash, then there's no skill component. If there's a cooldown from pressing the button to counter the mashing, the feedback isn't as obvious (IMO) as the targeting laser which creates a UX problem. Lastly, this allows SSRM to be a snap shot weapon, which is the only benefit standard SRM have over SSRM - requiring the laser lock on means SSRM are for guaranteed hits and SRM are for snap shots. Very similar to the difference in behavior of lasers vs ballistics.

Actually there is no logical flaw and you answered one of your objections yourself.

1. Mashing the firebutton wouldn't work because of cooldown. No problem.
2. Feedback from a miss could be applied any number of ways. A flashing light, a sound or both. No significant problem.
3. It would not allow SSRMs to be a "snap shot" weapon, assuming i'm understanding what you mean by "snap shot", because the current locking mechanism would still be required. No problem.

The advantage of this solution is that it is far more in line with traditional battletech (not that I'm worried about TT rules etc.). I still like your idea, I just think my solution fits the game better and would more closely implement SSRMs according to their description.

Edited by Charles Seneca, 10 April 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[zorak ramone]

focuspark, on 09 April 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Nearly identical to the 'targeting beam' approach, but different animation. Only major difference I see is that with the targeting beam, each launcher needs to target separately (at the same time) just like firing multiple lasers does. With the single reticle, all launchers lock on from the same point and arm swing helps all launcher equally regardless of where they're mounted.

It was meant to be identical to your implementation, only with different animations.

As for the different locations, how about two different locking animations? One for the arms, that centers around the "O" of the arm reticule, and one for the torsos, which centers on the "+" of the torso reticule.

This way, if you have launchers in the toros, and launchers in the arms, if you arm swing to lock, you see the locking animation over the "O" but not the "+", and when you achieve lock, only the launchers in the arms fire.

In the same situation, if you turn to lock a guy, and the "O" gets there first, followed by the "+" a half second later, you would see two partially overlapping lock animations, with the lock around the "O" finishing first, and therefore the arm mounted SSRMs firing first.

[AC]

The reason why we are having ECM issues is because PGI is trying to bandaid problems by introducing new features.....

Streak Cats were an issue, so they overpowered ECM, ECM is overpowered so they added a feature to PPC.... This snowball effect is NOT how you balance a game.

If we fix streaks, we can fix ECM

[focuspark]

zorak ramone, on 10 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

It was meant to be identical to your implementation, only with different animations.

As for the different locations, how about two different locking animations? One for the arms, that centers around the "O" of the arm reticule, and one for the torsos, which centers on the "+" of the torso reticule.

This way, if you have launchers in the toros, and launchers in the arms, if you arm swing to lock, you see the locking animation over the "O" but not the "+", and when you achieve lock, only the launchers in the arms fire.

In the same situation, if you turn to lock a guy, and the "O" gets there first, followed by the "+" a half second later, you would see two partially overlapping lock animations, with the lock around the "O" finishing first, and therefore the arm mounted SSRMs firing first.

Sure... then there's no functional difference. It's just the artwork. So long as the user understands what's happening, I think anything is OK. Perhaps a combination of the two makes the most sense. Show a beam for visual accuracy and also the animation for lock progress?

[Grey Death Storm]

I am sorry guys but I disagree with this Vote

I mean no disrespect to anyone only to voice my concerns

Some of you guys are talking about adding a timer targeting system to streaks, you got to remember light mechs these days have ECM that completely through s the idea using LRM these days out the window, these day you will not see lot people using LRMs because of the EMC issue. You are now talking about adding timer and altering the turn accuracy of streaks, Remember Assault mechs are not as fast at turning as light Mech i.e an Atlas for example, this would leave an Atlas vulnerable to Light Mechs as assult classes and heavy classes are not as fast at turning meaning a 3 or 5 second timer a nightmare for lock on. The idea of the thread is about balancing weapon and not making life far more easier for light mechs.

This EMC is over powering and leaves LRM relativity use less in combat at same time it defeating the purpose of using your brain and tactics to out smart the enemy, (THE FEAR OF LRMS IS GONE) and I feel game is now unbalanced, and what you guys are suggesting makes the other classes of mechs Vulnerable to light mech attacks.

Remember Light Mechs Role is to Scout the area ahead watch for enemy movement to report back to team mate use hit and run tactics not overpower assault Mech and pretty much beat it. Remember guys there needs to be balance in the game, idea is to get you work more efficiently think about unseen event and learn how to over come them and out think your enemy using tactics.

Edited by Death Storm, 11 April 2013 - 01:06 PM.