383 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with the speed and range increases, personally I would like to see 1500m (make them true long range) and perhaps 200m/sec. To encourage use of low numbers of launchers I suggested the use of Ghost heat to penalise the use of more than 2 launchers. This could be countered by quirks allowing more launchers on the Cat & Treb (any others Joe, I'm having a senior moment). I want to see them a viable weapon in small numbers.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Well, at least it seems we all agree that something is seriously wrong with the overall range changes (namely that they were uneven). Which, really, is a good start. From a player perspective I can understand wanting the LRM range increased, but from a game balance perspective I think it would be healthier for the game to have the extreme range bonus on (most?) ballistics decreased first, and then give LRM range a look in the changed environment.

I'm also curious as to the steady dropoff in autocannon damage compared to the steady dropoff in gauss rifle damage. From a balance perspective and an ease-of-comprehension perspective it makes sense to me (less variables for a player to keep track of, less variables for the game-maker to mess with), but it seems like autocannons (which deal damage primarily through explosives in the shell) should have a different form/type of damage dropoff from the gauss rifle (which deals its damage entirely via the impact of the slug). Perhaps keep the same rate per meter of autocannon damage dropoff but cut the damage to nothing abruptly at double optimal range? It wouldn't change the way the AC/20 steps on the AC/10's toes, but then, the current shell speed mechanics seem to have done well enough there anyways. This would also retain roughly the same autocannon effectiveness at the ranges most autocannon are used while allowing a shorter maximum engagement range as needed for LRMs to fill their niche without their own range being changed, or at least it seems like it would. (or again, without their own range being changed as drastically as might be otherwise necessary)

Just a thought.

-QKD-CR0

Edited by Elli Gujar, 06 March 2014 - 11:21 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah... you missed one.

And its a doozy!

=DocBach

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 March 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 06 March 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

I agree with the speed and range increases, personally I would like to see 1500m (make them true long range) and perhaps 200m/sec. To encourage use of low numbers of launchers I suggested the use of Ghost heat to penalise the use of more than 2 launchers. This could be countered by quirks allowing more launchers on the Cat & Treb (any others Joe, I'm having a senior moment). I want to see them a viable weapon in small numbers.

The problem you run into by instituting MORE ghost heat than we've already got is that eventually, after the invasion, you start to see a LOT of LRM specific mechs. It wouldn't be right to penalize mechs that are specifically designed to boat.

And...one step at a time. Increase the speed without changing tracking or turn radius. Let's see how that effects things. Why not? They're constantly adjusting stuff all the time...granted, most of the time it's to nerf something..but maybe they can actually do something helpful for a change.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 06 March 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

I agree with the speed and range increases, personally I would like to see 1500m (make them true long range) and perhaps 200m/sec. To encourage use of low numbers of launchers I suggested the use of Ghost heat to penalise the use of more than 2 launchers. This could be countered by quirks allowing more launchers on the Cat & Treb (any others Joe, I'm having a senior moment). I want to see them a viable weapon in small numbers.

Actually, Ghost Heat already penalizes the use of more than two launchers, as long as none of the launchers is an LRM-5.....

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Elli Gujar, on 06 March 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

Actually, Ghost Heat already penalizes the use of more than two launchers, as long as none of the launchers is an LRM-5.....

...come to think of it, this is a serious issue. Right now, most missile boats you see either have loads of LRM-5s or are so heavy that they can mount a ridiculous number of heat sinks in addition to four high-tube-number launchers. As much as I'd prefer ghost heat just go away (far, far away, and never return), I think it is very important that the ghost heat mechanic as it relates to LRMs be examined if we're looking at improving LRMs. Right now the punishment from ghost heat for large LRM racks more or less prohibits the use of 'mechs like the Salamander, because they can't afford to mount enough heat sinks to offset the ghost heat penalty (to say nothing of the poor Yeoman).

This is especially noticeable because in the original rules, you could save tonnage by using LRM-5s instead of heavier launchers, but you would pay by generating more heat per missile launched unless you were swapping out an LRM-10 (check it- quad 5s by original rules generates 2 more heat than an LRM-20 in exchange for using 2 less tons). This is definitely not the case in MWO, and skews things because the weight and critical slot allocations took these sorts of discrepancies into account.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 06 March 2014 - 11:34 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Trying to think of a way to word things in a way that you may comprehend.

- ECM and AMS should un-balance LRMs for the worse. That is the whole point of those 2 pieces of equipment.
- TAG/ARTEMIS/NARC should un-blanace LRMs for the better. That is the whole point of those 3 pieces of equipment.
- LRMs with no other variables should be fairly comparable to their direct fire counter-parts (LRM5 and ML, LRM10 and AC10..etc).

- LRMs are in a fairly decent place at the moment. Some minor tweaking, like the speed increase, will put them in an even better place, considering that Uber-AMS and Chaff are on their way.

ECM nerfs LRMs far more than TAG+Artemis buffs them. There is a very real imbalance there.

And LRMs with no other variables are not comparable to their direct-fire counterparts. PPCs are outright better.

So LRMs are not in a fairly decent place.

Quote

The problem you run into by instituting MORE ghost heat than we've already got is that eventually, after the invasion, you start to see a LOT of LRM specific mechs. It wouldn't be right to penalize mechs that are specifically designed to boat.

Why not? MWO has already deviated from canon. What doesnt seem right to me is enforcing canon for some things but not enforcing it for others. Selectively enforcing canon is whats wrong. MWO either needs to stick to strict canon or abandon canon completely... halfassing it is only going to cause problems.

For example, allowing slow light mechs that go 97kph in tabletop to go 151kph in MWO, but then not giving slow mediums the same speed increase is wrong. This is an example of how halfassing is causing problems with game balance.

Quote

Right now the punishment from ghost heat for large LRM racks more or less prohibits the use of 'mechs like the Salamander,

The Salamander will never be in the game though. Seems kindve silly to balance game mechanics based on mechs that will never be in the game. How about we balance game mechanics for the mechs that are in the game now?

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

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Why not? MWO has already deviated from canon. What doesnt seem right to me is enforcing canon for some things but not enforcing it for others. Selectively enforcing canon is whats wrong. MWO either needs to stick to strict canon or abandon canon completely... halfassing it is only going to cause problems.

For example, allowing slow light mechs that go 97kph in tabletop to go 151kph in MWO, but then not giving slow mediums the same speed increase is wrong. This is an example of how halfassing is causing problem with game balance.

The Percentage of increase was roughly the same IIRC Kho. And we don't have a 4/6 Light (Panther) to see if they would allow it to exceed the top increase for 4/6 Mediums.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 March 2014 - 11:34 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

The Salamander will never be in the game though. Seems kindve silly to balance game mechanics based on mechs that will never be in the game. How about we balance game mechanics for the mechs that are in the game now?

Well, not if PGI loses licensing within five years, no, but what if they don't? I seriously doubt PGI is making their design decisions on the premise that they're not going to succeed enough to keep ahold of the property, and if they are, they shouldn't.

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

The Percentage of increase was roughly the same IIRC Kho. And we don't have a 4/6 Light (Panther) to see if they would allow it to exceed the top increase for 4/6 Mediums.

The percentage of increase was not the same at all. The Commando is a 6/9 'mech, the Locust and Spider are 8/12, the Jenner is a 7/11, and the Raven is a 6/9- and the Firestarter is a 6/9 also. But all of these 'mechs have speed caps up around 160-170 kph in MWO (or 11/17 if we want to use tabletop numbers). And when the Locust's high speed cap was instituted, the speed cap on the Cicada (which is also an 8/12) was not increased to reach the same top speed (or get as close as possible) either.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 06 March 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 06 March 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Well, not if PGI loses licensing before then, no, but what if they don't? I seriously doubt PGI is making their design decisions on the premise that they're not going to succeed enough to keep ahold of the property.



The percentage of increase was not the same at all. The Commando is a 6/9 'mech, the Locust is an 8/12, the Jenner is a 7/11, and the Raven is a 6/9- and the Firestarter is a 6/9 also. But all of these 'mechs have speed caps up around 160-170 kph in MWO. And when the Locust's high speed cap was instituted, the speed cap on the Cicada (which is also an 8/12) was not increased to reach the same top speed (or get as close as possible) either.

Thats why I hedged with IIRC Elli!

The original speed cap was 151 ish, after that the server lag or something was to much and fast lights were actually invincible. Something has been fixed so top speed has been expanded to my memory. BUT as I only have a Sara with an XL300 engine... I on' know enough to be an authority on the speed issue. I just don't agree that a slow by canon design Mech should be turned into a hot rod.

[DocBach]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Yeah... you missed one.

And its a doozy!

=DocBach

beat you by four minutes, old man....


Happy birthday, by the way.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Thats why I hedged with IIRC Elli!

The original speed cap was 151 ish, after that the server lag or something was to much and fast lights were actually invincible. Something has been fixed so top speed has been expanded to my memory. BUT as I only have a Sara with an XL300 engine... I on' know enough to be an authority on the speed issue. I just don't agree that a slow by canon design Mech should be turned into a hot rod.

Sadly, the way the game balance currently works (and possibly is intended to work, but I can't read minds) and the opinions of large numbers of Commando/Firestarter/Raven/Jenner pilots would disagree quite loudly.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 06 March 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Sadly, the way the game balance currently works (and possibly is intended to work, but I can't read minds) and the opinions of large numbers of Commando/Firestarter/Raven/Jenner pilots would disagree quite loudly.

That's not my problem. I give my opinion, Others agree or disagree... Lemon pudding.

[Khobai]

Quote

I just don't agree that a slow by canon design Mech should be turned into a hot rod.

So you think Commandos should go 97kph? If canon top speed was enforced for lights id be fine with canon top speed also being enforced for mediums.

What im not fine with is canon max speed being selectively enforced for some mechs but not others. If you give a speed increase to slow lights you also have to give it to slow mediums for sake of consistency.

[Willard Phule]

Elli Gujar, on 06 March 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Sadly, the way the game balance currently works (and possibly is intended to work, but I can't read minds) and the opinions of large numbers of Commando/Firestarter/Raven/Jenner pilots would disagree quite loudly.

And those are the same guys you can see tearing across the open plain, trailing a rooster tail of LRMs that never connect. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right.

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

So you think Commandos should go 97kph? If canon top speed was enforced for lights id be fine with canon top speed also being enforced for mediums.

What im not fine with is canon max speed being selectively enforced for some mechs but not others. If you give a speed increase to slow lights you also have to give it to slow mediums for sake of consistency.

What's REALLY going to be fun is when the Omnis come in. You can't swap out the engines, so whatever speed they've got...you're stuck with.

[Khobai]

Quote

What's REALLY going to be fun is when the Omnis come in. You can't swap out the engines, so whatever speed they've got...you're stuck with.

Obviously thats going to have to change. An Uller that's stuck going 97kph will be dead on arrival otherwise. PGI will have to allow clan mechs to change both their armor values and engine ratings. However clan mechs will not be allowed to change their armor type or engine type.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

So you think Commandos should go 97kph? If canon top speed was enforced for lights id be fine with canon top speed also being enforced for mediums.

What im not fine with is canon max speed being selectively enforced for some mechs but not others. If you give a speed increase to slow lights you also have to give it to slow mediums for sake of consistency.

Commando top speed in MW:O is 171KpH... That isn't fast enough to you? You forget, I am a slow plodding bringer of death, not a whirling dervish of destruction. I don't see a need to go over 80KpH!

Some Canon Top speeds cannot be reached though due to the internet and server lag. We have several Omni's that have a top speed over 210KpH... They will be hamstrung by lag. Its a shame cause I would love to see the tumble a Fire Moth would take when it dies running full out!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 March 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Thing is, canon max speed isn't selectively enforced. A set percentage increase over canon speed is selectively enforced, which just makes the situation more complex and harder to balance. I am curious why it's been selectively enforced, and would appreciate seeing something from someone at PGI explaining this.

Unfortunately this only relates ancillarill... ancillaril.... in an ancillary manner (fine, spellcheck, have it your way, see if I care! -sniffle-) to LRMs, which I think was what this topic was about?

I think at this point we all agree that LRMs should be traveling faster. Nobody seems to have objected to suggestions of having them use two different flight paths depending on how the target is being locked for the LRM rack, so that would be a good suggestion to make to PGI also.

I said my piece on ECM and we seem to be mostly treading water on the issue as a whole, so we're just going to move on from that for now, I hope.

As far as AMSes... they can be adjusted after LRMs are adjusted. It's better to get it wrong and fix it than to never change anything out of paralyzing fear, after all. Although I do agree with some of the people here (don't recall who) that the AMS should not be more effective against missiles that aren't targeting you than against missiles that are. Whether it should be completely ineffective against missiles not targeting you, I don't know, but I think it's a moot point- SRMs never target anyone, and AMSes still work against them (and really should work against them), so I'm not sure that setting AMSes to recognise three different missile types (locked on to me, LRMs or SSRMs not locked on to me, SRMs not Streak) is practical- it sounds like it might be a lot of work, but I don't know programming.

Definitely the interactions of weapon ranges need a look if LRMs are ever going to fit back into the niche they originally came from, though....

-QKD-CR0

Edited by Elli Gujar, 06 March 2014 - 12:07 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Commando top speed in MW:O is 171KpH...

Their top speed is 97kph in tabletop. I know they go 171kph in MWO. If a slow light gets a 76% increase in top speed why shouldnt a slow medium get the same benefit? Hunchbacks should go 111kph.

[Willard Phule]

Khobai, on 06 March 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Obviously thats going to have to change. An Uller that's stuck going 97kph will be dead on arrival otherwise. PGI will have to allow clan mechs to change both their armor values and engine ratings. However clan mechs will not be allowed to change their armor type or engine type.

Why is that? It doesn't have to change as long as people are willing to spend money to have them. Oh well, it's slower than IS mechs...doesn't have as good armor as IS...weapons are about the same.

Looks like "history" is going to change....the Clans are going to lose long before Tukyyid.