Jump to content

Missile Suggestions: Make Missiles Stronger While Preventing Exploitation By Boats


10 replies to this topic

#1 Eggs Mayhem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 740 posts
  • LocationMinnesota, USA

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:17 AM

Hello,

The talk of the forums prior to the last CC post has mainly been alpha strikes and SRMs, with a sprinkling of LRMs. I've been trying to think up a very simple way to buff SRMs and LRMs without introducing the insta-core white ball of hate business that happens from LRM and SRM (prior to damage nerf anyways) boating. I feel that a new system (or 2 in this case) needs to be introduced in order to achieve the following:
  • Promote chain fire instead of only alpha strikes
  • Allow small numbers of missiles to hurt (in accordance to their size) without making large amounts of missiles to hurt too much.
  • Promote more of a "sandpaper" quality to missiles. Just a higher grit than currently.
The Current Issue

If we look at the behavior of single SRM packs, we can see an increase in spread as we go up in missile count:
Posted Image
This is great. Except once you factor in multiple packs of missiles fired at once, often from the same firing port. Instead of getting a bigger spread pattern with more missiles being fired, we get a pattern that is as tight as the biggest single pack. Compare this 3xSRM2 pattern with the SRM6 pattern:
Posted Image
6 missiles is not that frightening, especially at today's damage. However we all remember what it was like with the 36 missiles of the SRM cat. Builds like that are the ones that ruin SRMs for everyone, as they are capable of firing their missiles with 6x the area density of a single launcher of any size (even a single SRM36 if it were to exist, assuming it follows the same patterns).

This same issue also works with LRMs. In the case of the A1 again, it is capable of stacking 6 LRM5s, creating the ball of heat we all loathe (except for the firer of course). Not to mention, we are also capable of using the same missile tubes for multiple missiles simultaneously, which brings me to my first suggestion.

Suggestion 1: Create a Missile Queue

This seems petty at first, but it is necessary for the second suggestion to function. Essentially, this will treat all simultaneously fired missile weapons from a single hardpoint function like a single launcher of an identical missile count. For example, anyone can fire 15 LRMs from a CN9-A's left torso using 3 LRM5s, not only increasing the damage impulse but its spread (as there's not 5 missiles lagging behind).

The method on how this is implemented would be up in the air. It could either have a cooldown for each missile tube that affects every launcher, or it could lump all fired weapons into a single launch pattern. Just so long as it's not exploitable by really tight macros (firing 0.1s apart or something). And now the big boy...

Suggestion 2: Active Missile Diffusion

The core of this thought is that no two missiles of any flavor (sans streaks) should be within a certain distance of each other. This would mean that no matter how many missiles you fired, the ratio of surface area to damage would remain roughly the same. A way of thinking of this is that there is a bubble around every missile during their flight. If there are any bubbles overlapping each other then they will move apart so that they do not overlap anymore. This would also mean that the bubble's volume to missile damage ratio would have to remain constant for both SRMs and LRMs, allowing LRMs to be slightly more packed than SRMs. The following picture will be exaggerated to illustrate this.
Posted Image
As you can see, the three missiles have their "bubbles" overlapping, so they will experience forces directly away from each other. The sum of all forces on a single missile is illustrated in blue. The main issue with this solution would be the amount of calculations required. In real life, diffusion force is nonlinear with respect to distance so that would require a fair amount of calculations. You would need N!/(N-2)! calculations which gets to be 380 calculations per frame for an LRM20.

This would need to be simplified heavily. First, instead of calculating the force experienced on each missile a velocity vector could be calculated using a linear approximation with no variable dependence. The end goal of this system is not to accurately mimic real life but to make sure that the missiles are spread out by the time they hit an enemy. Then missiles that have no overlap in their bubbles need to be completely ignored. They are not too close to any other missile, so they have no reason to move. Then of course, the bubbles themselves need to be very simple geometric shapes. A rectangular or even triangular prism would be sufficient.

Another part of the bubble would be the back of the missile. This is to prevent players from quickly stagger firing a mess of LRMs so that they line up one behind the other, and essentially bypassing the system put into place here.
Posted Image

Overall Effect

No matter what platform the missiles are fired from and no matter the amount of missiles fired, the damage to surface area ratio remains the same. This means that there are natural diminishing returns for firing tons of missiles at once. The token LRM-60 or even LRM-80 stalkers would be unable to produce the white hot ball of hate and will instead create large blankets of missiles, of which most will miss the target. However if the player were to stagger this missiles so that they are firing one pack of missiles every 0.5s, they will condense into roughly the same spread that we have currently, just over the course of 1.5s from initial hit.

This also works in a reverse fashion. Small amounts of missiles will be in a tight area, likely the CT for LRMs and wherever you decide to aim for SRMs. Light mechs that are incapable of boating large amounts of missiles will not be at as large a disadvantage as currently.

Once this system is introduced. It will be safe to mildly increase the damage per missile on both LRMs and SRMs, though slightly more drastic with SRMs.

TL;DR
Introduce a missile queue, introduce active missile diffusion, and slightly increase damage of both SRMs and LRMs. Desired effect is to increase spread with the number of simultaneous missiles fired so as to curb boating while keeping missiles effective.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to comment.

#2 Otto Cannon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,689 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:32 AM

The missile queue is a bad idea. If a mech has 3 hardpoints why should it be penalised because the art guy drew a certain number of holes? It's already bad enough now without making things worse.

I don't think we need missile spacing either to be honest, using multiple small lrm launchers already has a penalty to the user because each one uses a whole hardpoint. If you put 6 lrm5 on an A1 you can't carry any other weapons at all and can only launch the same number as a 2xlrm15 cat. To me that makes up for the tighter grouping you get- the choice is total damage vs. focus.

#3 Eggs Mayhem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 740 posts
  • LocationMinnesota, USA

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:45 AM

View PostOtto Cannon, on 12 July 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

The missile queue is a bad idea. If a mech has 3 hardpoints why should it be penalised because the art guy drew a certain number of holes? It's already bad enough now without making things worse.


The whole point of it is to prevent macro abuse for the 2nd suggestion. And I don't see this making it a huge deal otherwise but it's really all subjective.

Quote

I don't think we need missile spacing either to be honest, using multiple small lrm launchers already has a penalty to the user because each one uses a whole hardpoint. If you put 6 lrm5 on an A1 you can't carry any other weapons at all and can only launch the same number as a 2xlrm15 cat. To me that makes up for the tighter grouping you get- the choice is total damage vs. focus.


Keep in mind the way it is currently allows your 6xLRM5 guy to hit with a damage density that is about 3x tighter than the 2xLRM15 guy, essentially tripling the damage to the CT area. I don't feel this is acceptable, and the non-linearity between builds is what is causing this balance swing that we keep seeing with SRMs and LRMs, swinging between too powerful and not powerful enough.

Edited by EmperorMyrf, 12 July 2013 - 10:45 AM.


#4 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 10:53 AM

Heh, If only...

This meshes ridiculously well with my idea here; http://mwomercs.com/...28#entry2522028

By using the missile diffusion you are suggesting to restrict spread sizes it helps average out the damage rather well. Stagger the launches out to accomodate for better averages and you end up with a better overall concept.


The interesting mix is that with my idea buffs AMS, while yours helps manage the damage even better.


The only problem with the missile diffusion like yours is that on say my Catapult it forces the launching spread of the LRM15-20 to become massive when its a LRM30-40. With the current launching glitch too where I can fire all missiles at once my A1 becomes dirt useless with the LRM50-90 styles. So I'd still argue better launching patter, but I love the way you describe the spreads.

#5 Otto Cannon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,689 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:04 AM

View PostEmperorMyrf, on 12 July 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Keep in mind the way it is currently allows your 6xLRM5 guy to hit with a damage density that is about 3x tighter than the 2xLRM15 guy, essentially tripling the damage to the CT area. I don't feel this is acceptable, and the non-linearity between builds is what is causing this balance swing that we keep seeing with SRMs and LRMs, swinging between too powerful and not powerful enough.


I do understand your point, but I think triple damage is exaggerated. I have tried 3lrm5 vs 1alrm15 and it isn't such a difference. I found the lrm5s to do a bit more ct damage for a couple less tons but you pay triple the hardpoints in return. I just don't think it's a big enough issue to need major missile mechanic changes just when they have lrms at a good balance point.

#6 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:14 AM

View PostOtto Cannon, on 12 July 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I do understand your point, but I think triple damage is exaggerated. I have tried 3lrm5 vs 1alrm15 and it isn't such a difference. I found the lrm5s to do a bit more ct damage for a couple less tons but you pay triple the hardpoints in return. I just don't think it's a big enough issue to need major missile mechanic changes just when they have lrms at a good balance point.

The total damage difference between the two isn't much from most mech sizes.

However the LRM5 will always cause more CT damage which is the main goal of missiles as you can't aimp them for the other parts. Because of the tighter grouping they also hit moving targets easier.

The difference is better noted on something like a Catapult where you can boat 6x LRM5 vs 2x LRM15s. My 5-apult consistantly deals more damage than the 15x2, every time. The kill/death ratio has spiked tremendously since I made that change as well.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 12 July 2013 - 11:17 AM.


#7 Otto Cannon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,689 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:25 AM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 12 July 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

The difference is better noted on something like a Catapult where you can boat 6x LRM5 vs 2x LRM15s. My 5-apult consistantly deals more damage than the 15x2, every time. The kill/death ratio has spiked tremendously since I made that change as well.


Exactly. That was the example I used originally for that reason. The A1 is the only mech where the difference is significant, and you sacrifice all other weapons to get it. I'm fine with that trade-off.

#8 Unbound Inferno

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 11:29 AM

View PostOtto Cannon, on 12 July 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Exactly. That was the example I used originally for that reason. The A1 is the only mech where the difference is significant, and you sacrifice all other weapons to get it. I'm fine with that trade-off.


It is for now. Wait till other mechs come out - there will be an assault that can boat and not loose out too much.... but there already is, isn't there?

The Stalker can load 4x LRM10s and still have other weapons.

#9 Kitane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 1,009 posts
  • LocationPrague, Czech Republic

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:26 PM

Catapult A1 sacrifices everything for a swarm of 30 missiles, and it's not as deadly as the OP presents, it makes him competetive with LRM assaults from hell that boat 60 missiles or more.

But imho the problem lies in something different. LRMS and their equipment are balanced around the size of the swarm and affected area. An unassisted LRM swarm hits an area with a radius of X. Artemis or NARC decreases this radius by 33%. Tag by 25% (these do not add). This makes LRMs a hell to balance, because unassisted missiles should still be viable, buffed missiles should be worth the Artemis & Tag cost, large targets shouldn't be cleanly cored through CT and smaller targets shouldn't be completely immune...

Imho Tag and Artemis/NARC should not affect the swarm size, it should alter the flight path. Missiles guided by Artemis/Narc would pick a smarter flight path allowing them to intercept faster targets with a better accuracy (a lead vs a pure pursuit curve). Unassisted missiles would be easier to dodge.

Then they can set all volleys to the same size and the amount of missiles and tubes will only determine the rate of damage done to the target area. In fact they could make it slightly dynamic and adjust the volley size by the class of the target, after all the target is known and tracked for the whole flight. Slightly more concentrated against lighter classes, slightly wider against larger classes to avoid clean CT coring - just for balance.

And finaly fix the stupid bug where multiple LRM x launchers fire through shared missile tubes at once and not staggered.

#10 Otto Cannon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,689 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:12 PM

View PostUnbound Inferno, on 12 July 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:


It is for now. Wait till other mechs come out - there will be an assault that can boat and not loose out too much.... but there already is, isn't there?

The Stalker can load 4x LRM10s and still have other weapons.


Ah yes, those 4xlrm10 Stalkers which are sweeping the battlefields clear and killing everyone... Oh, wait...

#11 DarkJaguar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 331 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:22 PM

Great post! This idea would tie in very nicely with a few of my own. I would personally prefer a "ripple fire" effect with a small delay between each missile firing, the thought here being that if you have 2 LRM-15's firing from the same ports, they cannot both fire at once, and instead spit out a (closely) spaced chain of 30 missiles. This paired with the bubble system would create nice spread patterns and completely prevent a cloud of 30 missiles that looks like 10. It would also emphasize bringing bigger launchers instead of multiple smaller launchers, as it will take the same amount of time to fire off 30 missiles with 3x LRM-10s as it would with a single 20 and a single 10.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 12 July 2013 - 01:24 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users