Jump to content

Balancing Indirect Lrm's With "ghost Lock" And C3


8 replies to this topic

#1 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 24 March 2014 - 08:33 AM

Singular weapon balance is in a good place. Where MechWarrior breaks is when you can boat several of the same weapon together that all shares the same lock; in the source material in which the numbers for damage come from, each individual weapon system would need a separate roll to determine if that hit.

We got Ghost Heat as a way to directly limit the amount of damage front loaded weapon systems like the PPC could do grouped up. Currently, with the speed change to LRM's, they are in a good spot balance-wise, with the exception that a player providing LRM support from massive "LRM-70" batteries can easily become the top scoring member of a team without needing to remove his 'Mech from defilaide the entire game. This is too rewarding for such low-risk play.

To make indirect fire more difficult, I suggest the following:

Line of Sight vs Spotting lock time: If an LRM boat is receiving targeting data solely from a spotter, the lock time is increased. In Classic Battletech sharing locks was in fact capable without a C3 network despite erroneous claims otherwise - spotting targets and indirect fire is a part of the Battletech universe, but pilots in the spotting 'Mech were suppose to do nothing during the turn of spotting except spot. To reflect this, a Ghost Lock penalty additional lock time can be applied to spotting locks to make it less easy for indirect firing 'Mechs to achieve locks from cover. If a 'Mech is gaining its own targets with direct line of sight, no penalty.

The spotting penalty could be mitigated of course by a spotter using a dedicated system like NARC, or perhaps implement C3. C3 in the source material shared total information throughout a linked lance increased accuracy for long ranged fire based on the distance the spotter was to the target. C3 in MWO could do the same thing with missile locks; currently, a 'Mech has to be targeted for it to be shared if it is outside of line of sight. 'Mechs on a C3 network would be able to target any 'Mech on the spotting 'Mechs radar, regardless of if the spotter has it actively targeted. C3 would decrease lock on time dependent on the location of the spotter to the 'Mech the C3 lancemate is firing on. The closer the spotter, the quicker the lock time. ECM would counter C3, so a spotter would need to run either in counter mode or disable an ECM bubble before transmitting C3 data.

Like Ghost Heat, Ghost Lock would also penalize the total number of tubes a 'Mech was capable of firing; an LRM-5 and 10 would have low lock on times, larger racks would have longer. Subsequently, additional racks further increase lock on time, again, with the intent to balance the fact that unlike in the source game where each weapon had to be rolled for individually, we now have a system that lets you rip off 80 missiles for a single lock in a continuous stream.

TL; DR

The larger the missile rack, the longer the lock on time, the more missile racks together the longer the lock on time, having no line of sight has a longer lock on time. C3 could be an added mechanic to let LRM's have accurate indirect LRM fire without line of sight, but would increase the risk of spotters.

Edited by DocBach, 24 March 2014 - 09:00 AM.


#2 PooHH

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 32 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:05 AM

I love this so much.

#3 Fut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,969 posts
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:10 AM

View PostDocBach, on 24 March 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

Like Ghost Heat, Ghost Lock would also penalize the total number of tubes a 'Mech was capable of firing; an LRM-5 and 10 would have low lock on times, larger racks would have longer. Subsequently, additional racks further increase lock on time, again, with the intent to balance the fact that unlike in the source game where each weapon had to be rolled for individually, we now have a system that lets you rip off 80 missiles for a single lock in a continuous stream.


Would like to test this system out (too bad it's not really possible to test such things).

The only part I don't full agree with, is longer lock times for the Larger Racks. Currently, the Small Racks already gain benefits for quicker firing rate, quicker cooldown rate, and tighter missile spread. I don't think we need yet another reason to use Smaller Racks over the Larger ones.

#4 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 26 March 2014 - 11:12 AM

Massed smaller racks also have a downside, though - they produce more heat and if you Artemis them you pay for them in extra tonnage.

#5 SleekHusky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 124 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 02:05 PM

At this current state I do find LRMs as pretty overpowered. At the moment it seems the best solution is to kill the boat fast, but that is easier said than done.

#6 Gyrok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel III
  • Star Colonel III
  • 5,879 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeriphery of the Inner Sphere, moving toward the core worlds with each passing day.

Posted 26 March 2014 - 03:15 PM

View PostDocBach, on 26 March 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Massed smaller racks also have a downside, though - they produce more heat and if you Artemis them you pay for them in extra tonnage.


Negative, that is no longer the case, a LRM20 w/artemis weighs the same as 4xLRM5 w/artemis. It SHOULD be the way you say, and LRM20 should weigh the same as 4xLRM5 w/o artemis...but the LRM crowd QQ'ed before and got them to change it. I personally would enjoy it being the case that it is MORE useful to carry 2x LRM15 rather than 6x LRM5. Even if it meant penalizing LRM5s to the point that they were only useful to mechs in small batches.

#7 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 26 March 2014 - 08:03 PM

An LRM-20 by itself weighs 10 tons, each LRM-5 weighs 2 tons. An LRM-20 with Artemis weighs 11 tons - four LRM-5's with Artemis weigh 12 tons (3 tons per launcher with Artemis). Conversely, an LRM-15 with Artemis weighs 8 tons, but three LRM-5's with Artemis weigh 9 tons. The separate launchers also create more heat as well -- this is the same its been since table top Battletech. Regardless, the main reason I made the suggestion to make smaller launchers have less lock on time, however, is to not punish players who take LRM's as a secondary weapon, rather than a boated weapon.

#8 Nothing Whatsoever

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,655 posts
  • LocationNowhere

Posted 27 March 2014 - 12:49 AM

Interesting, I need to play more matches and mull over builds to better understand how this would impact gameplay.

I've been thinking that LRMs for MWO should only be able to lock on to targets that are being TAG'ged, NARC'd and/or revealed with UAV only at minimum.

That way their primary fire style could be setup where when fired they either track to reticle crosshair or are made to be fire and forget like Autocannons. With a tweak to speed, that could give Spotting a bigger, hopefully better, role and have LRMs be less reliant on so many other systems.

Then with boating, LRMs could have a longer cooldown between salvos, when Launchers are placed with a missile tube count below the Launcher's count.

For example, an LRM 15 fired out of a six tube section could be: five missiles fire then 3.25 delay, five missiles fire then 3.25 delay, last five missiles fired regular 4.25 cooldown and on to next fire cycle. Something like that linked to missile tube counts could help with boating like that I hope.

#9 Serpentbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 485 posts
  • LocationVanvikan, Norway

Posted 18 October 2014 - 01:07 AM

Then they should also make a 10 sec cooldown on autocanons.

What I find interesting is the fact that most ppl complaining about LRMs do not care to use AMS. If more than one mech used AMS, the size of the LRM barage would need to be huge to get trough.

LRM5 spaming is close to useless against just a few AMS mechs.

Also, ECM. Most ECM lights use ECM as personal protection while they gun off in all directions, instead of teaming with the elements of the team under LRM barages. Also, PPL tend to not care about their positions relative to the teams ECM mechs.

This is not a solo run and gun game. As PGI says, it's a thinking persons game.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users