383 replies to this topic

[Willard Phule]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Speaking of "rules that changed"...

The written rules haven't had you use the punch hit chart for the better part of a decade. Partial cover is now +1 to hit instead of +3, normal hit locations- but if you roll a location in cover, you hit the cover instead.

Note: This can be unhealthy when your cover happened to be a building full of ammo boxes you were trying to loot. From experience.

Ok,I'll buy that. Keep in mind we're operating from OLDER books and such. Old guys do that.

I dig it. +1 to hit, nail the cover. I'll have to bring that up when my buddy gets back from his latest job assignment. I think that'll speed things up a little better than we've already got going.

As for shooting the cover....just want to point out that sometimes it's better to shoot AT the cover than the mech behind it. I can't remember the character's name, but Avanti's Angels had a girl that was a terrible gunner, so they gave her Thunder LRMs because "the ground is easier to hit." I tend to do a LOT of terrain damage on purpose. Incendiary LRMs are a wonderful, evil thing if used correctly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Willard Phule, on 06 March 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

Ok,I'll buy that. Keep in mind we're operating from OLDER books and such. Old guys do that.

I dig it. +1 to hit, nail the cover. I'll have to bring that up when my buddy gets back from his latest job assignment. I think that'll speed things up a little better than we've already got going.

As for shooting the cover....just want to point out that sometimes it's better to shoot AT the cover than the mech behind it. I can't remember the character's name, but Avanti's Angels had a girl that was a terrible gunner, so they gave her Thunder LRMs because "the ground is easier to hit." I tend to do a LOT of terrain damage on purpose. Incendiary LRMs are a wonderful, evil thing if used correctly.

Phule, you are no Fool!

[Der_Goetz]

Why could it now be, that with artemis the missle starts as a block ( 15 with LRM 15) and without artemis they start one after a other. So there is a difference with that. narc and tag help to get more rockets on the mech. ams does the opposite. If the missles become faster the effective range of ams become bigger. (from 90 to 180, i don´t know the exact numbers).

I think the biggest mistake PGI did, was to take some Rules from TT and let others vanish. As a result we get a unbalanced game.

[Willard Phule]

Drake Grayson, on 06 March 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

Why could it now be, that with artemis the missle starts as a block ( 15 with LRM 15) and without artemis they start one after a other. So there is a difference with that. narc and tag help to get more rockets on the mech. ams does the opposite. If the missles become faster the effective range of ams become bigger. (from 90 to 180, i don´t know the exact numbers).

I think the biggest mistake PGI did, was to take some Rules from TT and let others vanish. As a result we get a unbalanced game.

You didn't notice the new "AMS Range" module, did you? I bought one and it's actually effective.

[Joseph Mallan]

What's the range increase Phule? I didn't even know we had a mod for that!

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

What's the range increase Phule? I didn't even know we had a mod for that!

Ok...so...It's got 2 levels. I have them both unlocked. I can only tell you what it says for the module I've got.

"Increase the long range of AMS by 8 meters, increase maximum range by 16 meters."

Basically...it allows the AMS to engage missiles further out, increasing the amount of time it's doing 3.5 damage to flights of incoming missiles. I can pretty much negate an LRM5 by myself and do serious damage to an LRM10. 15s and 20s...not so much.

[wanderer]

Quote

Ok,I'll buy that. Keep in mind we're operating from OLDER books and such. Old guys do that.

S'alright. I've been doing this since the old white-Shadow Hawk cover rulebook, but still pick up the new books as they come along. Though 4Chan is oft thought of as a dirty word, the Battletech General on /tg/ is actually a really handy catch-up resource from the first-post links. Educational and free, at that. And I'm an old guy too.

And yes,the AMS upgrade is a nasty, nasty thing if someone's trying to fire past you- an AMS-2 module will rip noticeable chunks out of even a 15-20 salvo with the additional time to engage. Never mind what it does with dual AMS rigs.

[Khobai]

The problem is LRMs arnt balanced around AMS. If a PPC does 10 damage then an LRM10 should also do about 10 damage since both are the same size and weight.

Since an AMS shoots down 3 missiles, an LRM10 will normally hit a mech with AMS with 7 missiles.

For the LRM10 to get 10 damage past a single AMS, LRM damage needs to be increased to at least 1.5 per missile. (7 * 1.5 = 10.5 damage)

1.1 per missile is WAY too low.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

The problem is LRMs arnt balanced around AMS. If a PPC does 10 damage then an LRM10 should also do about 10 damage since both are the same size and weight.

Since an AMS shoots down 3 missiles, an LRM10 will normally hit a mech with AMS with 7 missiles.

For the LRM10 to get 10 damage past a single AMS, LRM damage needs to be increased to at least 1.5 per missile. (7 * 1.5 = 10.5 damage)

1.1 per missile is WAY too low.

The whole AMS concept vs. LRM's is borked in this game.

They really need to revisit all of the items that make LRM's better or worse.

AMS should be self only, because if a team has 8+ AMS, even if they aren't all together, LRM's suddenly become nearly worthless.

[wanderer]

Quote

The problem is LRMs arnt balanced around AMS. If a PPC does 10 damage then an LRM10 should also do about 10 damage since both are the same size and weight.

Actually, an LRM -15- is the same tonnage as a PPC (7 tons), and in TT did marginally less damage (9 on average) with better range (and ammo costs, but half the heat).

Of course, in MWO the PPC can outreach the LRM and because it deals focused damage, generally outperforms it in small numbers.

That AMS chews up missile flights that go past it -better- than ones aimed at it is an issue.

[Willard Phule]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

The problem is LRMs arnt balanced around AMS. If a PPC does 10 damage then an LRM10 should also do about 10 damage since both are the same size and weight.

Since an AMS shoots down 3 missiles, an LRM10 will normally hit a mech with AMS with 7 missiles.

For the LRM10 to get 10 damage past a single AMS, LRM damage needs to be increased to at least 1.5 per missile. (7 * 1.5 = 10.5 damage)

1.1 per missile is WAY too low.

Not entirely correct.

LRM10s should have the POTENTIAL to do 10 points of damage. Keep in mind, at least in TT, that once you've succeeded in actually hitting with your LRMs, you have to roll on the "cluster chart" to see how many actually hit. That number is divided into 5 point groupings that hit random locations.

Artemis gives you a bonus on the cluster chart....read that as tighter grouping....but you rarely, if ever, score all the missiles. It's a trade off.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

The problem is LRMs arnt balanced around AMS. If a PPC does 10 damage then an LRM10 should also do about 10 damage since both are the same size and weight.

Since an AMS shoots down 3 missiles, an LRM10 will normally hit a mech with AMS with 7 missiles.

For the LRM10 to get 10 damage past a single AMS, LRM damage needs to be increased to at least 1.5 per missile. (7 * 1.5 = 10.5 damage)

1.1 per missile is WAY too low.

That would be saying that we have to balance a PPC around Blue Shield Generators so that the still do full damage!

LRMs are not balanced for AMS cause AMS was much MUCH weaker than they are here. AMS could only shoot down 1-6 missiles per AMS, Only had 6 shots per ton and rolled how many shots were needed t0 take out those 1d6 missiles. So you could shoot down 1 LRM and use all your ammo doing it! Clan systems could hit 2d6 missiles.

[Khobai]

Quote

That would be saying that we have to balance a PPC around Blue Shield Generators so that the still do full damage!

Not at all the same thing. Blue shield only affects the mech its on. It doesnt stack like AMS. Blue Shield also takes up more tonnage and way more crit slots, so it should reduce PPC damage more.

AMS is only 1.5 tons and stacking enough of them completely negates LRMs. So It stands to reason LRM damage should be buffed so the LRMs that do get through do meaningful damage.

Lets not forget ECM either. LRMs have more than one piece of equipment that counters them. LRMs should actually do more than 1.5 damage per missile given all their counters and outright inferiority to PPCs. But 1.5 per missile is the absolute minimum amount of damage they should do.

Quote

LRMs are not balanced for AMS cause AMS was much MUCH weaker than they are here. AMS could only shoot down 1-6 missiles per AMS, Only had 6 shots per ton and rolled how many shots were needed t0 take out those 1d6 missiles. So you could shoot down 1 LRM and use all your ammo doing it! Clan systems could hit 2d6 missiles.

Actually, LRMs are much weaker in MWO than tabletop. The reason is because LRMs are only effective out to about 500m, beyond that theyre super easy to dodge. While PPCs and other long range weapons can still do good damage at 800m or more. LRMs arnt actually "long-range" in MWO, more like medium-range.

Tabletop = LRMs have a max range of 21 hexes while the PPC only has a max range of 18 hexes.

MWO = LRMs have a max effective range of about 500m (17 hexes) while the PPC has a max effective range of about 800m (27 hexes)

The point is LRM damage needs a massive buff because LRMs have tons of counters and dont even get their tabletop range advantage.

Quote

Actually, an LRM -15- is the same tonnage as a PPC (7 tons), and in TT did marginally less damage (9 on average) with better range (and ammo costs, but half the heat).

I included the ammo because lrms dont work without ammo

LRM10 with 2 tons ammo is 7 tons and 4 crits.

LRM15 with 2 tons ammo is more tonnage than a PPC.

Edited by Khobai, 06 March 2014 - 12:03 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

Not at all the same thing. Blue shield only affects the mech its on. It doesnt stack like AMS. Blue Shield also takes up more tonnage and way more crit slots, so it should reduce PPC damage more.

AMS is only 1.5 tons and stacking them completely negates LRMs. So It stands to reason LRM damage should be buffed so the LRMs that do get through do meaningful damage.

I did miss the stack, but they took that from some other book series... or three (Honorverse I now has Team AMS)

[Abivard]

wanderer, on 05 March 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

LRMs are the biggest ammo hog in the game, missiles are -dodgeable-, generate more heat per shot than AC's, and can be defeated simply by breaking LOS.

Don't give me a sob story about the autocannon. It's the best weapon system in the game right now, hands down and it's "flaws" are pathetic at this point. There's a reason why ballistic-heavy builds are top of the meta-charts, and it's not because AC's have any discernable serious flaws at this point. Heck, you slap a PPC in to take advantage of the cooling your runs-so-cool AC doesn't need to beef up your firepower!

Oh my an emotional one... are you denying that they have these shortcomings, you seem ready to claim them for your favorite weapon, LOL

You are part of the problem with your narrow, close minded ways. You simply react like one of Pavlov's dogs.... AC is mentioned, and you rant.

What is even more funny is I am simply stating the facts without any opinion in reply to a post that claimed AC's have not a single drawback, and also claimed that LRM's have to many.

Let us look at your statements;

1)LRM's are the biggest ammo hogs.... false.
Tons per weapons mount are no more and often less then the tonnage devoted to AC ammo on a ton per weapon basis. With the added advantage that ALL LRM ammo is INTERCHANGEABLE among all LRM launchers.

2)Missiles are -dodgeable-... only by VERY Fast mechs, however any mech can dodge AC, with the added disadvantage that AC's require the AIMING skill, unlike LRM's which only require a lock on to automatically home on a target.

3)Can be defeated simply by breaking line of sight.....FALSE! does not require LOS, the only weapon in the game that DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT!
That statement takes the cake for stupid statements, LRM's are the ONLY weapon where breaking the LOS does not DEFEAT a weapon.

4)generate more heat than AC's per shot...False! AC20 generates more heat than LRM20, per shot they cost 6 heat, however the HPS(HeatPerSecond) is AC20-1.5 the LRM 20 -1.26, all the rest of the AC/LRM hold true

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_ballistic here is the link to the weapons data.

Please educate yourself before you open your mouth and show the world you are a fool!


In conclusion:

LRM's need a speed increase so that no Mech can outrun them.

But a true discussion can not occur amid slanders and falsehoods.

[Joseph Mallan]

Abivard, on 06 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

Oh my an emotional one... are you denying that they have these shortcomings, you seem ready to claim them for your favorite weapon, LOL

You are part of the problem with your narrow, close minded ways. You simply react like one of Pavlov's dogs.... AC is mentioned, and you rant.

What is even more funny is I am simply stating the facts without any opinion in reply to a post that claimed AC's have not a single drawback, and also claimed that LRM's have to many.

Let us look at your statements;

1)LRM's are the biggest ammo hogs.... false.
Tons per weapons mount are no more and often less then the tonnage devoted to AC ammo on a ton per weapon basis. With the added advantage that ALL LRM ammo is INTERCHANGEABLE among all LRM launchers.

2)Missiles are -dodgeable-... only by VERY Fast mechs, however any mech can dodge AC, with the added disadvantage that AC's require the AIMING skill, unlike LRM's which only require a lock on to automatically home on a target.

3)Can be defeated simply by breaking line of sight.....FALSE! does not require LOS, the only weapon in the game that DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT!
That statement takes the cake for stupid statements, LRM's are the ONLY weapon where breaking the LOS does not DEFEAT a weapon.

4)generate more heat than AC's per shot...False! AC20 generates more heat than LRM20, per shot they cost 6 heat, however the HPS(HeatPerSecond) is AC20-1.5 the LRM 20 -1.26, all the rest of the AC/LRM hold true

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eapon_ballistic here is the link to the weapons data.

Please educate yourself before you open your mouth and show the world you are a fool!


In conclusion:

LRM's need a speed increase so that no Mech can outrun them.

But a true discussion can not occur amid slanders and falsehoods.

he highlighted is incorrect sir. A Valid LoS is required to use Missiles. That LoS May be a team mates but if his LoS is broken and the target is still moving, my Missiles will miss. So LoS IS needed for LRMs an SRMs.

[Abivard]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

he highlighted is incorrect sir. A Valid LoS is required to use Missiles. That LoS May be a team mates but if his LoS is broken and the target is still moving, my Missiles will miss. So LoS IS needed for LRMs an SRMs.

It is not instantly broken, we all know that there is a time decay on target lock, however, for ANY other weapon, breaking the los with any other weapon instantly negates that weapons ability to do damage.

In FACT the LRM player who fires, does NOT require LOS, they require a target lock.
they can fire INDIRECTLY, that means they DO NOT NEED LOS!

This is really not hard, but when people are quick and loose with words and facts it just distorts things even more.

In the above case, he meant just what he implied, that LRM's require a constant LOS from the firing mech. And indeed are the only weapons that are made UNUSABLE by a lack of LOS.

[Almond Brown]

Cimarb, on 04 March 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Sounds like Ghost LRMs to me - I vote no, sorry.

Hard points already limit the number of launchers you can take, while weight and space are two other limiting factors. No need to add arbitrary rules to make them as averaged out as ACs have been implemented, where every single AC is effectively an AC20 but with different delivery rates.

Agreed, I was simply responding to a request to somehow make a single LRM5 be as useful as an LRM20. It would involve all sorts of whacko maths and general BS rules additions. AMS is the solution for those times you get heavily targeted and need a few seconds to find proper cover.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Abivard, on 06 March 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

It is not instantly broken, we all know that there is a time decay on target lock, however, for ANY other weapon, breaking the los with any other weapon instantly negates that weapons ability to do damage.

In FACT the LRM player who fires, does NOT require LOS, they require a target lock.
they can fire INDIRECTLY, that means they DO NOT NEED LOS!

This is really not hard, but when people are quick and loose with words and facts it just distorts things even more.

In the above case, he meant just what he implied, that LRM's require a constant LOS from the firing mech. And indeed are the only weapons that are made UNUSABLE by a lack of LOS.

We get it, you don't know how to avoid LRM's and die to them via indirect fire constantly. That is about you, not LRM's. Go learn to play, then come back to this thread.

[Almond Brown]

CapperDeluxe, on 04 March 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

What if they made no changes to LRMs damage or flight speed/path, but made them fire and forget? In other words once you lock and fire, you don't have to maintain lock.

Now to make it fair if they lose you as a contact on the radar it should "lose lock" like it does now but it would be nice if you didn't have to maintain cursor on target the whole flight because that means you can't really use other weapons during flight-time very effectively or risk losing lock.

Would likely make TAG obsolete, except for your Scout spotter. Oh right, no need for a Scout spotter either... Fire and Forget em.