21 replies to this topic

[D Sync]

This is a subject that has confused me for some time now.

Long Range Missiles (LRM) - With targeting/tracking electronics the available payload would be limited given the booster fuel used to travel 1 kM, taking into account Artemis, so one (1) point of damage per missile makes perfect sense, one-point-one (1.1) points of damage is odd and doesn't make sense.

Streak Short Range Missiles (SSRM) - With targeting/tracking electronics the available payload would be limited, so two (2) points of damage makes sense. Two-point-five (2.5) points of damage is odd and makes no sense, the advantage of SSRM's is the targeting/tracking electronics.

Short Range Missiles (SRM) - With no targeting/tracking electronics the available payload would be larger than the previously stated missiles. Two (2) points of damage is very odd in comparison to the other two missile types, two-point-five (2.5) points of damage makes sense and is much more reasonable given the nature of the weapon.


Another way would be one (1) point of damage for LRM, one-point-five (1.5) points of damage for SSRM and two (2) points of damage for SRM. Either way, the missiles seem to be very off-balance.

Edited by SuperUser013, 27 September 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[Marvyn Dodgers]

I will defer to those (many, many) out there much wiser than me, but I believe the current amounts of damage are based on what PGI was seeing in game and attempting to address balance issues related to heat, DPS, etc., etc.

Waiting to be sternly corrected

[Heat Seeking Civet]

The damage amounts are totally whacked right now because PGI would rather mess with the damage totals than fix the glaring hit detection issue.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Those are the table top values for missiles.

Technically only SSRM's are "guided".

In the tabletop LRMs were more like very fast traveling rockets. Minimal guidance but fast so that they would hit the target within a second or so of launch.

But PGI made LRM's track. So they act like guided missiles because they are so damn slow.

[D Sync]

This isn't TT, not all things will translate when taken from a board game to a video game.

Reference: Min-Max builds.

[HybridTheory]

ForestGnome, on 27 September 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

The damage amounts are totally whacked right now because PGI would rather mess with the damage totals than fix the glaring hit detection issue.

This though I don't think that they are ignoring the issue... maybe hoping that with DX11 implementation some of the hit detection issues are resolved? I know streaks damage got a buff because of the new random tracking that has them hit various parts of a mech based on a % for each part... can't recall the exact figures but before they were very likely to key in on the CT which is why they get nerfed back before... but until the splash damage issue is actually fixed (which was supposed to be dealt with in... April... I think...) they have been playing with damage, tracking and ghost heat for missiles every other patch it seems..... (though current numbers seem somewhat balanced if completely lacking sense)

[D Sync]

HybridTheory, on 28 September 2013 - 02:30 AM, said:

This though I don't think that they are ignoring the issue... maybe hoping that with DX11 implementation some of the hit detection issues are resolved? I know streaks damage got a buff because of the new random tracking that has them hit various parts of a mech based on a % for each part... can't recall the exact figures but before they were very likely to key in on the CT which is why they get nerfed back before... but until the splash damage issue is actually fixed (which was supposed to be dealt with in... April... I think...) they have been playing with damage, tracking and ghost heat for missiles every other patch it seems..... (though current numbers seem somewhat balanced if completely lacking sense)

SSRM's will leg a light in a matter of seconds now, and from what I hear from other players it is the same as the dual-A/C 20 builds ... they are just easy to pilot and win. Given that, it is just another skill-less build that needs to be balanced in order to maintain a certain level of entertainment and challenge for all players.

[Xandre Blackheart]

The entire game is based on TT values and rules. They adjusted all weapon damage by 1/2 when they doubled armor. Everything has been adjusted to some degree or another.

But if you start going too far away from TT values it loses the flavor.

I haven't seen any issues with lights getting legged quickly by SSRM's. Maybe it's the kintaro builds that are doing it, but I find them to be pretty useless for any kind of damage to a specific point.

They are useful for actually hitting lights when HSR and Hit Detection go pear shaped, which happens with dismaying frequency lately.

[Nuke and Glow]

Never new srm did more damage . To me a lrm should do more it builds up more impact.

[p4g3m4s7r]

It's because SSRMs hit completely random parts. This means you can never focus damage, and have to instead rely on consistent and relatively high damage. The SSRM is still at a mild disadvantage to the SRM4, which only weighs half a ton more. I think it's fine, and we should't care too much about the damage they should "realistically" do.

[Nihtgenga]

Xandre Blackheart, on 27 September 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Technically only SSRM's are "guided".

NO, they are NOT! SSRMs have not guided missiles, they have standard, unguided SRMs according Battletech universe. Their difference is, that they only launch, when they can hit the target = the SSRM launcher has a computer calculating extrapolating the target movement.
The targeting still has to be done by the pilot! But, that's Battletech - not PGIs MWO...

They opted to differ quite a lot from battletech for balancing issues (despite of many proposals in the forum how to do it more closely to BT Universe) and have step-wise added serious deviations like SSRMs, Gauss, ECM, heat, weapon damage, armour and internal structure. Probably more to come.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 29 September 2013 - 01:18 AM.

[Kaijin]

SuperUser013, on 27 September 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

This is a subject that has confused me for some time now.

Long Range Missiles (LRM) - With targeting/tracking electronics the available payload would be limited given the booster fuel used to travel 1 kM, taking into account Artemis, so one (1) point of damage per missile makes perfect sense, one-point-one (1.1) points of damage is odd and doesn't make sense.

In TT Battletech, die rolls were used to hit, and to determine hit location for all weapons. Because of being able to aim energy weapons, ballistics, and SRMs in MWO, combined with pinpoint convergence with the first two, TT armor values were found to be severely lacking, so they were doubled. (not nearly enough IMO) LRMs cannot be aimed in MWO. Their damage splattered all over a mech in TT, and does so in MWO as well, more or less. Doubling armor has effectively halved LRM damage compared to the other weapons. Instead of 1 (TT value), or 1.1, it should be 2.

Edited by Kaijin, 29 September 2013 - 01:38 AM.

[Nihtgenga]

Kaijin, on 29 September 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

In TT Battletech, die rolls were used to hit, and to determine hit location for all weapons. Because of being able to aim energy weapons, ballistics, and SRMs in MWO, combined with pinpoint convergence with the first two, TT armor values were found to be severely lacking, so they were doubled. (not nearly enough IMO) LRMs cannot be aimed in MWO. Their damage splattered all over a mech in TT, and does so in MWO as well, more or less. Doubling armor has effectively halved LRM damage compared to the other weapons. Instead of 1 (TT value), or 1.1, it should be 2.

Depends how you see it. The ability to aim wouldn't be that of a big problem, if a random cone of fire would be also introduced for lasers and ballistics (the MG already has it, afair!). That would not just add another factor to more smoothly balance out the LOS-fire and indirect-fire weapon systems by closing the "targeting gap", it would also reduce the problem of pinpoint-alphastrike-builds, which PGI tried to adress already many times, e.g. with that PPC/Gauss change of the last patch.

The lack of decent damage distribution was one big reason for PGI to have the structure/armour values doubled, as high pinpoint damages like occurring now in MWO would make short work of mechs running into a dual-AC/20 setup or similar. Even a massive AS7 center torso worth 80 points of armour could be stripped with two salvos (= in less than 10s!) from a Jager. Due to doubling armour but keeping pinpoint, this will have its reoccurance, as soon as the clan mechs are added, where dual-cUAC/20s will be sported.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 29 September 2013 - 02:18 AM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Nihtgenga, on 29 September 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

NO, they are NOT! SSRMs have not guided missiles, they have standard, unguided SRMs according Battletech universe. Their difference is, that they only launch, when they can hit the target = the SSRM launcher has a computer calculating extrapolating the target movement.
The targeting still has to be done by the pilot! But, that's Battletech - not PGIs MWO...

They opted to differ quite a lot from battletech for balancing issues (despite of many proposals in the forum how to do it more closely to BT Universe) and have step-wise added serious deviations like SSRMs, Gauss, ECM, heat, weapon damage, armour and internal structure. Probably more to come.

You mean:

"Originally developed in 2647, the Streak SRM Launcher is relatively similar to the standard SRM launcher but linked to a unique Targa-7 fire control system. This system is designed to guarantee a hit against any target onto which the pilot can get a lock, a special feature of this system preventing the weapon from firing at a target when there is no lock-on, saving ammunition by preventing shots that would miss."

​That sounds like guidance to me. I think you are confusing guidance with the actual ability for a missile to Seek or change course. Tag is a guidance system, and so is Artemis. Guidance is a level above targeting. Targeting is point, calculate and adjust for windage and elevation, and fire. When you have a system that gathers (and updates) information on the target, like distance, speed, direction etc. that's guidance.

I could have been more specific I suppose. But when you're talking about that level of specifics, there are no seeking missiles in battletech. Not in 3050 anyway. Even LRMs were ballistic rockets that depended on angle of fire to target an area.

"Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. "

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 29 September 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[shellashock]

ForestGnome, on 27 September 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

The damage amounts are totally whacked right now because PGI would rather mess with the damage totals than fix the glaring hit detection issue.

IIRC, it is only srms that have the borked up HSR. I am pretty sure that lrms and ssrms are fine in terms of hit detection. Because HSR was borked up so much for srms, pgi made a poll for people to vote whether or not to buff srms damage until hsr for srms were fixed. This poll was voted massively in the favour of yes, despite concerns for the return of the splatcat when the hsr was fixed. This buff was requested massively before PGI even put the poll up mostly because so many people were wanting the srms to be returned to normal damage values when splash damage was all but removed.

Missile values in general have been tweaked so many times in general it is not even funny, so it is relatively refreshing to have some form of balance in missiles while HSR is getting fixed

[Asmosis]

I'm not sure why you think 1 point makes more sense than 1.1 point of damage for a missile impact, explosions arent made out of integers.

As to why, its the balance that was settled on. 1.0 wasnt quite enough for lrms, 1.3 was too much iirc so 1.1 was tested and showed to be about right. SRM's at 2.5 are a temporary thing (probably) until the hit detection issues get resolved.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Asmosis, on 29 September 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

explosions arent made out of integers

I think you mean fractions.

But it still sounds cool.

Explosions. They are Not Integers.

[FREDtheDEAD]

Hey, missiles are neither cripplingly powerful or pointless at the moment, which is a nice place to be.

They still need lots of love. LRM5s have a much tighter formation than other LRM weapons (depends on tube configurations). LRM5+Artemis does damage like a CT-seeking AC5s with line-of-sight and and are pretty deadly in indirect mode too. The champion Cat can boat 6 of them.

Hit detection is an acknowledged issue.

Splash damage was never fixed and may never get fixed. They briefly tuned LRMs into nukes when trying splash damage that spread missile damage to the vulnerable head. (Splash damage was supposed to cause a small amount of damage from nearby LRM missile hits, mainly for consistency with air and orbital strikes, but the idea never worked.)

The differences between MWO and TT has been thoroughly discussed and explored over the last two years of closed and open beta development by hundreds of people over literally thousands of posts. I really wouldn't bother or someone has to explain the whole history of MWO and the reasoning behind changes from TT over and over again.

[Nihtgenga]

Xajorkith, on 30 September 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

The differences between MWO and TT has been thoroughly discussed and explored over the last two years of closed and open beta development by hundreds of people over literally thousands of posts. I really wouldn't bother or someone has to explain the whole history of MWO and the reasoning behind changes from TT over and over again.

Rest assured, I won't. However, a small overview is needed to set the right picture about the differences and how they are structured/related.

What you say about the "nice place to be" - that's not how I would describe it. LRMs are at the moment not useless in MWO, but really finishing an enemy mainly with LRMs takes a heck of ammo+time nonetheless (also because their spread is relatively constant over their range, while the TT rules would make them deadlier in medium/"close" range - you mentioned the LRM5-effect yourself). Not as ridiculous as with the current maximum-spread-by-definition-SSRM, but still. The other extreme are the ACs, which can be much easier targeted and pinpointed (even in groups!) than in TT. Result is, that LRMs are not as deadly in comparison to direct-fire weapons as in Battletech, creating tendencies towards certain builds being superior. Adjusting the damage up/down a bit, fondling with turning radii a bit etc. will not eliminate it.
If somebody has already BT background and expects a similar balancing/game mechanics like in TT, such differences simply somehow "feel odd", independently from any discussion if MWO is fun or not this way. It's like green ketchup.

Unless PGI continues this arbitrary "but WE do it that way", it is a simple love-it-or-leave-it, that's undoubtedly right. But it's (edit: sadly, I have to add, as they are often the most dedicated fans backing the whole game) not just statistical glitch that among the ones leaving were in relation quite a lot BT "veterans" and MWO "Founders".

Edited by Nihtgenga, 30 September 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Sylow]

You are completely right, the game needs to be true to the TT values. Of course, to achieve that we also need every weapon to be able to fire once in 10 seconds and when you fire, your crosshair is disregarded and the game rolls internally to determine if you hit or miss the target you currently are locked on.

Sounds like a perfectly fun conversion of MWO to me.

PS: Posting might contain sarcasm.