23 replies to this topic

[Team Leader]

Simple, really, if a wave of missiles has 15- (rough number up for debate, dependent on the actual physical spacing of the missiles as they leave the chamber) -or fewer LRMs in it, it uses the current, CT seeking system that is causing so much grief. That way smaller and smaller missile loads will focus their damage even more, to the point where an LRM 5 with Artemis and TAG is basically an AC 5 to the CT. This would improve the pinpoint damage of small missile racks and make them useful! The A1 would be able to be a "legitimate" LRM build for once, making the most of its 6 missile points.

However, if the target is currently receiving a huge volume of fire, the LRMs should use the SSRM "bones" system, so the target still receives the massive damage but its all spread out and manageable! This way, huge LRM clouds are not instant death but still hurt all over and put out the best damage on slow and big targets, while smaller precise missile launches focus their damage much better and arent useless in stock and niche builds but its not too much damage, to be fair.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Concerns?

Edited by Team Leader, 25 July 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

small racks already recycle quite a bit faster than big racks. the tradeoff is tonnage. small racks also already hit locations tighter than big racks as well.

[Brilig]

Could try keeping missile spread the default size, and letting Artemis/TAG increase the missiles tracking ability. Larger missile racks would spread their damage out more, and Artemis/TAG stay relevant.

Or give them the bones targeting thing, and let Artemis/TAG increase tracking ability.

[Team Leader]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 July 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

small racks already recycle quite a bit faster than big racks. the tradeoff is tonnage. small racks also already hit locations tighter than big racks as well.

Yet its not enough to make them worthwhile

[jeffsw6]

Team Leader, on 24 July 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Thoughts? Criticisms? Concerns?

I think your idea is interesting and it could probably work. I'd love to see it on the public test server. It's the only suggestion I've seen, other than my projectile speed notion (linked below), that really tries to make smaller numbers of LRMs effective without boosting "LRM boats."

Non-Boating LRMs: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 July 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

small racks already recycle quite a bit faster than big racks. the tradeoff is tonnage. small racks also already hit locations tighter than big racks as well.

While true, an opponent is unlikely to just stand there and let himself be hit by a second or third volley of LRMs, spaced many seconds apart. I don't think it matters much that LRM5 c/d is 3.25 and LRM20 is 4.75 unless an enemy is charging you from 400m and you hope to hit him two times, instead of once, before he reaches 180m.

Also please consider AMS, which is really the reason LRMs have to be boated to be of any real value. Sure, a Catapult or Stalker can carry a lot of LRM5; but most mechs cannot.

[Unbound Inferno]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 July 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

small racks already recycle quite a bit faster than big racks. the tradeoff is tonnage. small racks also already hit locations tighter than big racks as well.

Team Leader, on 24 July 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Yet its not enough to make them worthwhile

And thus you have my ridiculously OP 6x LRM-5 Catapult A1 that if in a good group rains death like hell...

What I'd give for PGi to balance that so I can go back to LRM-20 on my C4...

[Lyoto Machida]

Unbound Inferno, on 24 July 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

And thus you have my ridiculously OP 6x LRM-5 Catapult A1 that if in a good group rains death like hell...

What I'd give for PGi to balance that so I can go back to LRM-20 on my C4...

I'm literally driving that 6x LRM 5 build right now. Saw a unit mate in one raining down death so I'm trying it.

[Kitane]

1) CT coring is caused mainly by Artemis (+ Tag) bonus and further increased by a tighter spread of small volleys. The mech design and the increased exposure of "CT hitbox" from the typical LRM angle of descent is another issue and most likely not fixable without redesigning all hitboxes on most mechs.

2) The game does not handle properly multiple launchers firing at once. When you fire 6 LRM5 at once, you fire 6 volleys of 5 at once that just happen to travel on the same path at the same time. OP's proposal would change 6LRM5 Cat into surgical AC30 boat.


A radius of missile volleys should not be affected by the number of missiles at all. LRM5 cloud should hit just as large area as LRM20 cloud, because the ability to fire more missiles faster is the main advantage of LRM variants like Catapult C4. Punishing them for their main advantage makes no sense.

Artemis+Tag bonus should be reevaluated and reduced, its cumulative bonus halves the radius of a target area and the reduced target area is hit by 4 times as many missiles as without any bonuses.

And PGI should finally man up and fix the issue of multiple launchers. Either make a proper system so SRM/LRM launchers get processed in a queue as fast as the tube limit allows or add graphical representation of additional launchers.

Edited by Kitane, 25 July 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Team Leader, on 24 July 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Simple, really, if a wave of missiles has 15- (rough number up for debate, dependent on the actual physical spacing of the missiles as they leave the chamber) -or fewer LRMs in it, it uses the current, CT seeking system that is causing so much grief. That way smaller and smaller missile loads will focus their damage even more, to the point where an LRM 5 with Artemis and TAG is basically an AC 5 to the CT. This would improve the pinpoint damage of small missile racks and make them useful! The A1 would be able to be a "legitimate" LRM build for once, making the most of its 6 missile points.

However, if the target is currently receiving a huge volume of fire, the LRMs should use the SSRM "bones" system, so the target still receives the massive damage but its all spread out and manageable! This way, huge LRM clouds are not instant death but still hurt all over and put out the best damage on slow and big targets, while smaller precise missile launches focus their damage much better and arent useless in stock and niche builds but its not too much damage, to be fair.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Concerns?

Kinda a silly idea I think. If the Missiles are made to hit all locations randomly, I am likely to get 3-5 hits on the CT with larger Salvos. So not only will I get the insta 5 on CT I will also pepper other locations and possibly destroy a component and make more salvage.

[Team Leader]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 July 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

Kinda a silly idea I think. If the Missiles are made to hit all locations randomly, I am likely to get 3-5 hits on the CT with larger Salvos. So not only will I get the insta 5 on CT I will also pepper other locations and possibly destroy a component and make more salvage.

Well.. Yeah. That's the idea. Instead of right now an LRM 40 getting 20 damage straight to the CT (like now with bonuses), it would do maybe 7 to CT and the other 33 to the rest of the mech in various places. Still more powerful than a small launcher, less effected by AMS, but it's not as concentrated damage. Which is the point. That's what I'm thinking, I'm not sure if its a good idea or not, but this is based solely on my experience in game.

[Team Leader]

Kitane, on 25 July 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

1) CT coring is caused mainly by Artemis (+ Tag) bonus and further increased by a tighter spread of small volleys.

Well... Yeah, but as in the example above larger volleys are still more damaging overall, just not as focused on a percentage scale but still higher damage output in every way.

Quote

2) The game does not handle properly multiple launchers firing at once. When you fire 6 LRM5 at once, you fire 6 volleys of 5 at once that just happen to travel on the same path at the same time. OP's proposal would change 6LRM5 Cat into surgical AC30 boat.

So, like, implement this functionality? I don't get why you said this and also no it wouldn't.

Quote

A radius of missile volleys should not be affected by the number of missiles at all. LRM5 cloud should hit just as large area as LRM20 cloud, because the ability to fire more missiles faster is the main advantage of LRM variants like Catapult C4. Punishing them for their main advantage makes no sense.

So small launchers should be useless by spreading out their pitiful damage all over the same area as a 20, or should the giant 20 launchers have a small super lethal spread? Why NOT?

[Joseph Mallan]

Team Leader, on 25 July 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Well.. Yeah. That's the idea. Instead of right now an LRM 40 getting 20 damage straight to the CT (like now with bonuses), it would do maybe 7 to CT and the other 33 to the rest of the mech in various places. Still more powerful than a small launcher, less effected by AMS, but it's not as concentrated damage. Which is the point. That's what I'm thinking, I'm not sure if its a good idea or not, but this is based solely on my experience in game.

I can't disagree with what you are saying. LRMs do feel like they are swarming to the CT, But with out random locating... What can we do? Pretty much any programming of hit detection will get figured out and players will eventually figure out how to game them. Less missiles should hit CT I agree, but the question really is, "How much less?"

[Kitane]

Team Leader, on 25 July 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Well... Yeah, but as in the example above larger volleys are still more damaging overall, just not as focused on a percentage scale but still higher damage output in every way.

Randomized damage distribution is one of the worst things that can happen to a weapon in this game. And this change would require additional drastic changes to LRMs to keep LRM mechs viable that would negatively affect especially light and medium mechs.

Quote

So, like, implement this functionality? I don't get why you said this and also no it wouldn't.

The simple act of implementing this functionality will again alter the overall behavior and balance of all missile types. I mean imagine Centurion with its 3 SRM6 that loses its ability to fire all three at once and instead fire them in three staggered volleys. That's a pretty significant change. Some overloaded mech builds will take 10s or more to fully cycle through one LRM alpha.

Quote

So small launchers should be useless by spreading out their pitiful damage all over the same area as a 20, or should the giant 20 launchers have a small super lethal spread? Why NOT?

No, right in the middle, between current 10 and 15 missile volleys. LRM20 would apply 4 times as much damage to same target area as LRM5 but that's kinda the point of LRM20.

[Windsaw]

I think the most important change would have to be AMS.
Now it shoots down a fixed number of incoming missiles. One AMS against an LRM 20 volley reduces the overall damage just a little. An LRM 5 volley is being cleanly shot out of the sky. LRM 10s are also mostly useless.
My suggestion is that AMS should blast a fixed PERCENTAGE of incoming missiles.
Also, when more than one AMS is around, the effectiveness mustn't be added.

Example: AMS shoots down about one third of the missiles.
Meaning 2 of a LRM 5 volley or 7 of an LRM 20.
Two AMS standing next to another would shoot down about 40%, not two thirds.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kitane, on 25 July 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

Randomized damage distribution is one of the worst things that can happen to a weapon in this game. And this change would require additional drastic changes to LRMs to keep LRM mechs viable that would negatively affect especially light and medium mechs.

I don't think that is true for a weapon that has been known to be extremely random for its 30 years of use. LRM20s could hit with 6-20 missiles and able to pepper the whole chassis or no hot dice rip a section clean off. LRMs and SRMs are random weapons by design.

Quote

The simple act of implementing this functionality will again alter the overall behavior and balance of all missile types. I mean imagine Centurion with its 3 SRM6 that loses its ability to fire all three at once and instead fire them in three staggered volleys. That's a pretty significant change. Some overloaded mech builds will take 10s or more to fully cycle through one LRM alpha.

I am pretty set against UNgrouping myself. I have hardly known a player to only fire one weapon system at a time. They fire lasers, cannons, and or missiles. remember 10 seconds is for both sides to fire move and vent heat so 5 seconds per side per 10 second turn.

[Tombstoner]

Anything that spreads damage over the surface of a mech would be good for the game. besides it makes LRM's function more like TT. This is the sort of immersion that the game needs. LRMS are for striping off armor at long range. The fact that is has an indirect fire ability practically necessitates the spread of that damage just to balance out massed volleys that are hitting the CT reliably. the trade off for indirect fire with lock on should be damage spread, with tag and Artemus shifting the hit percentage by 5% for each system. so if you have both tag and artimus you have a 5% chance to hit the arms and legs or 20% then 20% each torso (40%) and 40% for the ct. you should get stacking bonuses in the ideal situation of tag+ narc+ Artemus.


for the above example if the target is also narced then 0% on arms and legs, 25% each torso( 50%) and 50% for the CT.

[Zyllos]

Just use SSRM targeting, but in groups of 5 LRMs, which I call swarms. Swarm patterns are large, thus even when aiming at a specific location, they WILL hit other locations or miss.

Smaller launchers are more tonnage and heat efficient but is greatly effected by AMS.

Larger launchers can get pass AMS but is less efficient in tonnage and heat.

There should be no difference between firing larger and smaller launchers. Small tube counts basically makes larger launchers act like smaller launchers, making them vulnerable to AMS without any of the efficieny bonus. This limits mechs with smaller tube numbers or SRM tubes from being real LRM boats. Of course, small tube numbers but with limit hardpoints, you could still fit LRM/15s and LRM/20s so that your small tube launcher will fire many LRMs, it's just spread across many salvos, making it vulnerable to AMS.

SRM locations on a mech will only be replaced by 5 tubes if LRMs are equipped for that spot.

In doing this, target sharing/GECM/NARC/TAG/BAP will need to be rebalanced:

• Target sharing only happens if you and someone else is equipped with C3 or if a target is hit by NARC/TAG. There will be no C3 master/slave, just equip C3 and all other mechs equipped with C3 will share among them. GECM will stop the sharing of information if within 180m of the targeted mech or will block sharing to/from a C3 equipped mech if an enemy GECM is within 180m. Targets that are picked up by players will show up on the minimap, even if you do not have direct LoS with your own sensors.

• GECM reduces targeting range for the equipped mech by 400m (400m for normal sensors and 800m with BAP). GECM will counter all EW/IW within 180m of a GECM equipped mech (except TAG). This means that BAP within 180m of enemy GECM will get reduced down to 400m and NARC is completely nullified. Artemis will be blocked if targeting a mech that is within 180m of GECM or the Artemis equipped mech itself is within 180m of GECM.

• NARC will last for 30s after being hit. There will be no damage limit to the duration. NARC will increase the chance of swarms to hit torso sections but not effect swarm spread. All mechs will share this target while an active NARC is going.

• TAG will do exactly what it does now, will allow all mechs to target it. The range will be reduced back to 450m. All mechs will share this target while being hit. LRM swarms will be tightened by a small amount but will not change hit location chances.

• Artemis will be greatly tighten LRM swarms and SRMs if the target is within LoS and not effect swarm hit location chances. SSRM targeting speed will not be effected.

• BAP will increase sensor range by 400m, target shutdown mechs within 180m, and get targets outside of LoS within 180m.

What this will do is make LRMs always useful, no matter his/her team layout. But without any team support, LRM users will have to get direct LoS. Teams will no longer share target data unless they bring C3 units, NARC, or TAG. Teams will share target locations on the minimap if another player could target them, but you will not be able to actively target that mech unless your own sensors has LoS, has been NARC/TAG, or shared by C3.


LRMs also will not need to maintain a lock to get the LRMs to the target. Once fired, the lock is maintained unless you can no longer actively target the mech for some reason (loss of direct LoS, GECM, ect). This will allow the LRM user to be able to fire at multiple targets, if need be, or fire and fade back into cover but sensors must be maintained on the target or LRMs will stop homing. Target decay time is included in this.

After doing this, direct fire weapons will need their weapons damage spread out in some fashion, also. I would suggest Homeless Bill's suggestion for direct fire weapons.

Personally, this is what I would do to the entire LRM meta. They will always be useful if the LRM user can get direct LoS and maintain sensor range/LoS. If not, the LRM user will need help from team mates to fire indirect LRMs. LRM damage will be randomized just like SSRMs, but in swarms. Smaller/larger launchers have no baring on how well they aim, it's 100% just a tonnage/heat efficiency vs. # of hardpoints for Missile Hardpoints vs. how big a salvo (# of swarms) can be when targeting an AMS mech.

AECM, in the future, will do everything GECM will do, except instead of reducing sensor range, actively targeted mechs can not be locked on. This is extended to other mechs within 180m range of the AECM equipped mech.

Edited by Zyllos, 25 July 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[Ngamok]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 July 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I'm literally driving that 6x LRM 5 build right now. Saw a unit mate in one raining down death so I'm trying it.

I am doing 4xLRM10s chain fire as well on my A1. I rock people just as much.

[MaddMaxx]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 July 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I'm literally driving that 6x LRM 5 build right now. Saw a unit mate in one raining down death so I'm trying it.

Cool beans. That might revive the use of AMS. Its almost become like a lost art. AMS loves LRM5's too.

[MaddMaxx]

Windsaw, on 25 July 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

I think the most important change would have to be AMS.
Now it shoots down a fixed number of incoming missiles. One AMS against an LRM 20 volley reduces the overall damage just a little. An LRM 5 volley is being cleanly shot out of the sky. LRM 10s are also mostly useless.
My suggestion is that AMS should blast a fixed PERCENTAGE of incoming missiles.
Also, when more than one AMS is around, the effectiveness mustn't be added.

Example: AMS shoots down about one third of the missiles.
Meaning 2 of a LRM 5 volley or 7 of an LRM 20.
Two AMS standing next to another would shoot down about 40%, not two thirds.

Ummm, so if me and a PUG Team mate both have AMS, and then stand near each other, you propose that we get a nerf to our AMS capability simply due to our proximity?

No thanks. I spent the tonnage for a reason, not to get nerfed because another Team mate did as well.