103 replies to this topic

[Wendigo Vendetta]

Asmudius Heng, on 27 May 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Also - what does 'Support' weapon even mean?

Basically, a support weapon has a few common attributes. They are generally designated support weapons based on how it performs in the overall battle field environment.


The term "support" is very apt when discussing these weapons. They are, due to their attributes, not the mainline weapon in a particular scale of conflict in which they are used. Machine guns and man portable mortars are support to small scale infantry operations, while artillery batteries are support to large maneuver elements.


First, they generally have attributes that render them more difficult to employ. This may be special skills required for their operation, special ammunition (or extreme quantities of it), or the difficulty and unwieldiness of their operation. Most machine guns for example require an assistant gunner, a spare barrel (in case of barrel melt down), a tripod or bipod, massive quantities of ammunition for sustained operations, and special equipment needed to maintain the weapon in the field.

Second they do not merely replicate the effects of the mainline weapon; they bring unique capabilities to the battle not replicable with the normally employed weapon. The ability of mortars to suppress and strike troops behind hard cover is one example.

Finally, they are force multipliers so big that their use outweighs the pain in the *** that they are to use and field. They generally have huge impacts on the flow of the battle, otherwise the force employing them would never go to all the trouble of the special training, increased costs, and tricky employment associated with maintaining and fielding such kit.

Edited by Wendigo Vendetta, 27 May 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Radbane]

I haven't been around much lately so maybe this idea have been posted, but why not change the way missile hardpoints work? Mechs have modeled missile launchers, and drawn tubes ("holes") missiles comes out of. We already use this limit in the amount of missiles that can be launched at once, like a LRM10 in a modeled LRM5 launcher would launch 5 missiled twice instead of the whole 10. But why not ad this limit the total missilelaunchers allowed to be carried by these mechs aditionally to the normal missile hardpoints?

A Cat A1 for example comes with two 15-tube launchers. That's a total of 30 missiles. So that's your limit you might use when adding launchers. May it be 2x15 LRMS (30), or 6x2 (12) SSRM's, but no boating like 6x6 (36) SRM's. 4x4 + 2x6 SRMs would be ok though for a total of 28. The reason to have both limits would be so that we don't se a a mech with 10x2 SSRM' in a LRM20 slot.

You'd still have customization, but a bit more limited for boating, and it would favor builds that are more close to canon. Missiles would have to be balanced for this though, meaning pack a bit more punch than now.

Edited by Radbane, 27 May 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[Gelion]

Simple matter of fact is that if damage per missile was increased only slightly, it would not cause the major problems as before. The speed now is good, the arc (post-fix) is good, Poptarting has to be even more annoying than lrm-fest because most of them can brawl to a certain extent as well, thereby nullifying every other build. Srm's are probably in the worst position now, closely followed by pulse lasers.

There is no fun to be on the receiving end of lrmaggedon, neither is there any fun to be on the receiving end of poptarts, Streaks also have become too powerful a tool and make me unwilling to run in my lights anymore which could beat both poptarts and lrm's.

[El Bandito]

Radbane, on 27 May 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

I haven't been around much lately so maybe this idea have been posted, but why not change the way missile hardpoints work? Mechs have modeled missile launchers, and drawn tubes ("holes") missiles comes out of. We already use this limit in the amount of missiles that can be launched at once, like a LRM10 in a modeled LRM5 launcher would launch 5 missiled twice instead of the whole 10. But why not ad this limit the total missilelaunchers allowed to be carried by these mechs aditionally to the normal missile hardpoints? A Cat A1 for example comes with two 15-tube launchers. That's a total of 30 missiles. So that's your limit you might use when adding launchers. May it be 2x15 LRMS (30), or 6x2 (12) SSRM's, but no boating like 6x6 (36) SRM's. 4x4 + 2x6 SRMs would be ok though for a total of 28. The reason to have both limits would be so that we don't se a a mech with 10x2 SSRM' in a LRM20 slot. You'd still have customization, but a bit more limited for boating, and it would favor builds that are more close to canon. Missiles would have to be balanced for this though, meaning pack a bit more punch than now.

It is an interesting idea and I like it. With this, STK-3H might see more usage.

However, it requires a lot of work, which PGI might not prefer. Starting with making LRMs viable again.

Edited by El Bandito, 27 May 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[Matthew Ace]

I rest my case from my previous argument.

It is possible to limit mass-boated LRMs if LRMs were to be buffed and their behaviour corrected (being totally CT seeking is NOT) - but it involves bumping the heat up.

[Monkeystador]

Matthew Ace, on 27 May 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

I rest my case from my previous argument.

It is possible to limit mass-boated LRMs if LRMs were to be buffed and their behaviour corrected (being totally CT seeking is NOT) - but it involves bumping the heat up.

Simply said. Its NOT TRUE . LRMS are NOT ct seaking.

Tryed to kill a raven orange all over with orange side torso. 3x 50 couldnt kill it on 300meters even though it was he legged and busy shooting some other guy. He even faced me more than once. The missle spread was simply to wide and many of them just missed.
With Artemis i assume more missiles would have hit but it was a normal launcher.

I would say using Artemis, firing on a big mech, with a wide CT, which also faces the rockets then many of them will hit CT. but that is by no means CT seaking. FULL STOP

Edited by Monkeystador, 27 May 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Sephlock]

All I'm going to say is this: Try piloting the most absurdly overloaded missile boat you can imagine and play it over and over. You'll be SHOCKED by how little damage you do given how much time you spend locked on the enemy, firing volley after volley.

[Gelion]

I like Radbane's suggestion upon fixing the number of missiles to the number of tubes available to launch them. It would make perfect sense and make the boating designed for those that boat it. However, people will then start to question as to why that isn't used on other hardpoints as well. But I like it

[Radbane]

El Bandito, on 27 May 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

It is an interesting idea and I like it. With this, STK-3H might see more usage.

Yeah, and no more ECM Atlas LRM missile turret, or ECM Raven with dual SSRM's =) (Two builds I just loathe hehe)

Also, NARC launchers maybe actually would be used as NARC launchers, as that's the only launcher you could fit in the 1-tube model =)

Edited by Radbane, 28 May 2013 - 12:07 AM.

[Monkeystador]

Sephlock, on 27 May 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

All I'm going to say is this: Try piloting the most absurdly overloaded missile boat you can imagine and play it over and over. You'll be SHOCKED by how little damage you do given how much time you spend locked on the enemy, firing volley after volley.

Absolutely spot on!

[Appogee]

Sephlock, on 27 May 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

All I'm going to say is this: Try piloting the most absurdly overloaded missile boat you can imagine and play it over and over. You'll be SHOCKED by how little damage you do given how much time you spend locked on the enemy, firing volley after volley.

I dunno. You say missile boats don't work, but then last night I was in a game where the highest scorer on the enemy team, with 70 points, was a LRM Camperpult who was 800m from the battle and using spotting from his team.

I know both of us aren't intentionally lying, so I don't understand how we can both be seeing such completely different things.

[Taemien]

First of all, LRMs are not support weapons. In TT terms, they are actually crit seeking weapons since a 'hit' can call for multiple hit locations. A support weapon is an Arrow IV, Longtom, Sniper, or Thumper.

There's an easy fix for LRMs. Increase the damage per missile until they hit that sweet spot of being the right damage per ton in comparison to other weapons. This will not be OP despite being boated as I am about to suggest yet another change.

Have 4 different spread values:

Normal which is a direct fire, LOS shot with no Artemis. Big enough spread to hit legs and arms on a mech.

Indirect which is a wide spread, meaning only 20-40% missiles will hit an average sized mech. This can be altered to normal if someone is spotting and tagging the enemy mech. This only works for indirect fired missiles. Missile spread for Tag and LOS do not stack.

Narc or Artemis will be tightened up. Most missiles will hit (assuming the target isn't running evasive and using cover. More likely to hit torso locations than arms or legs, still spread enough to hit all three torso locations.

Narc and Artemis - the tightest spread. Pretty much all missiles will hit the torsos. If this turns out to be a bit OP, let PPCs knock off Narcs like they do in MWLL.

Basically the biggest complaint about LRMs is never the damage, but the ability to deal damage indiscriminately. So I took this out. In order to do full damage from safety, you need to use teamwork with a TAG (not Narc, Narc would allow lockon, but no bonus to indirect firing missile spread).

This forces LRMs to be used in concert with other direct fire weapons, exposing the firer while doing so. In fact they would need to be exposed even longer so they don't get indirect missile spreads. Mechs sporting single LRM5s or LRM10s would be able to deal damage under normal conditions.

In addition, ECM would block Narcs and Artemis bonuses. But not Tag.

I would also consider removing lockon speed bonuses as well. (allowing functionality for a future Artemis V FCS, way down the road)

[Monkeystador]

Appogee, on 28 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

I dunno. You say missile boats don't work, but then last night I was in a game where the highest scorer on the enemy team, with 70 points, was a LRM Camperpult who was 800m from the battle and using spotting from his team.

I know both of us aren't intentionally lying, so I don't understand how we can both be seeing such completely different things.

I assume you meant 700 points? This is certainly not the common case. I am sure circumstances can be attributed to this extraordinary case.

[Furmansky]

Appogee, on 28 May 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

I dunno. You say missile boats don't work, but then last night I was in a game where the highest scorer on the enemy team, with 70 points, was a LRM Camperpult who was 800m from the battle and using spotting from his team.

I know both of us aren't intentionally lying, so I don't understand how we can both be seeing such completely different things.

Weird... using LRM's even with good spotters and all upgrades from 800m on anything else that is not moving or going straight your direction without cover is very... tricky at most. It could be possible yeah not denying that, but only when enemy team is just ignoring all the LRM warnings... which could be quite possible considering how effective those missiles are now

LRM's drastically loosing their effectiveness if used on good, careful and aware pilot.

[Asmudius Heng]

Wendigo Vendetta, on 27 May 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Basically, a support weapon has a few common attributes. They are generally designated support weapons based on how it performs in the overall battle field environment.


The term "support" is very apt when discussing these weapons. They are, due to their attributes, not the mainline weapon in a particular scale of conflict in which they are used. Machine guns and man portable mortars are support to small scale infantry operations, while artillery batteries are support to large maneuver elements.


First, they generally have attributes that render them more difficult to employ. This may be special skills required for their operation, special ammunition (or extreme quantities of it), or the difficulty and unwieldiness of their operation. Most machine guns for example require an assistant gunner, a spare barrel (in case of barrel melt down), a tripod or bipod, massive quantities of ammunition for sustained operations, and special equipment needed to maintain the weapon in the field.

Second they do not merely replicate the effects of the mainline weapon; they bring unique capabilities to the battle not replicable with the normally employed weapon. The ability of mortars to suppress and strike troops behind hard cover is one example.

Finally, they are force multipliers so big that their use outweighs the pain in the *** that they are to use and field. They generally have huge impacts on the flow of the battle, otherwise the force employing them would never go to all the trouble of the special training, increased costs, and tricky employment associated with maintaining and fielding such kit.

Fair enough - i dont think that is what most people mean when they say support lol but thats kinda what i thought it meant in a loose fashion.

However, i dont know if that translates to MWO that well.

Difficulty - travel time that can be dodged, minimum range, need to gain a lock etc

Not debating that is extremely difficult but it does require some extra effort over other guns. It can be difficult to bring to bear in some instances, and they do have a significant drawnabck in minimum range.

However this seems to talk to an LRM boat - i dont see a single rack of LRMs being a support weaopn in that role, i see it is being a mechs primary long range firepower.

To me the whole IDEA of LRMs ned to be more clearly defined and support just doesnt cut it for this game - IMO anyway - though it does have some similarities.

[Livewyr]

Radbane, it's a nice idea, however, it's purely cosmetic and on many mechs, it's already changing based on what you put in there. (I'm so excited, I put that suggestion in back in July...whether it was planned already or not matters little me!) For example, the Highlanders missile tubes will change somewhat based on what you put in there. (732 LT will show up to 20 tubes, Arm will show up to 20 tubes)

There is nothing to say they won't rework the cat's ears to show more tubes.

Also, if they went by that..they'd have to do it for ballistic/energy points as well (like the LT on the atlas only has one gun, no double LBX or dual ultras, generally the older done chassis, this would just cripple any customization.)

[Sephlock]

Monkeystador, on 28 May 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

I assume you meant 700 points? This is certainly not the common case. I am sure circumstances can be attributed to this extraordinary case.

I doubt you can even carry enough ammo for that unless you had one LRM20 and nothing but ammo. The only thing I can think of is ammo explosions (those can count for A TON, especially in the case of Atlases).

And no, he typed 70, so obviously it must be 70 .

Alternatively, ELO(w).

Edited by Sephlock, 28 May 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Sephlock]

Livewyr, on 28 May 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

this would just cripple any customization.)

That's exactly what some people want though...

[Sprouticus]

Radbane, on 28 May 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

Yeah, and no more ECM Atlas LRM missile turret, or ECM Raven with dual SSRM's =) (Two builds I just loathe hehe)

Also, NARC launchers maybe actually would be used as NARC launchers, as that's the only launcher you could fit in the 1-tube model =)

As someone pointed out, this is cosmetic and will change moving forward.



Right now we as a community need to assume PGI wants LRM's to be roughly the same value as other weapons because they have not stated otherwise. With that in mind, here is the thing that everyone is not talking about...


Some people don't like LRM's because they don't see any 'skill' involved in using them (because you don't have to point and click.. This is patently false, but that is what they believe. So they (intentionally or not) want the weapon damage/usefulness to reflect that perception.

Now I could say the same thing about PPC's vs lasers. Lasers have DoT, so it takes more skill to use them, therefore they should do more damage.

But there are serious issues with this line of thinking. Primarily, what constitutes skill. Is skill just aiming? What about positioning, seeing the battlefield, prediction of the flow of battle. For LRM's that is the critical skill needed to maximize damage. What about snap shooting vs steady aim. Being able to snap shot with a gauss or PPC is a skill, and a hard one. However being able to hold a beam from a laser is also a skill, albeit a different only than snapshots.


We can sit here and argue all day which one is a 'real' skill or which one is 'harder'. It won't get us anywhere because in the end it is subjective.


The only real objective way to do this would be to look at damage done with other variables (pilot, chassis, etc) being equal. Compare individual damage done over many drops normalizing for pilot skill (same pilot, or pilots with similar ELO/KDR) and chassis (same or similar chassis.

That evaluation might be difficult for even PGI with all of their data mining ability to complete. Then again, maybe not. Im not sure.


The other good indicator is use (it is not perfect, but given a large enough set, it is useful). If weapons are not being used, they probably are not very good. Again, only PGI can give us solid numbers, but I can say that towards the end of this weekend, that my limited experience showed LRM usage was WAY down, even from Saturday. They were still being used, but not nearly as much. Which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on the real numbers.


If I had to guess I would say that LRM's are slightly under powered right now, and need a slight tweak (earlier in the thread I said raising damage from 0.9 to between 1.1-1.3).

Edited by Sprouticus, 28 May 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[Livewyr]

Sephlock, on 28 May 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

That's exactly what some people want though...

Then they should buy some models, paint, and dice. (They may not need the manuals.. they probably have those in their head.)



EDIT: (or if they really feel strongly about it, they can buy dice, and roll one before they shoot each time and point where the dice says it would go...)

Edited by Livewyr, 28 May 2013 - 09:44 AM.