383 replies to this topic

[Aym]

If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Aym, on 26 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.

Can't balance LRM's right now. It's not possible.

At all.

Too many different systems effect them.

To balance LRM's you need to turn off:

UAV
Artemis
TAG
ECM
AMS
Adv Target Decay
NARC

While those items are effecting LRM's, you cannot balance them.

Oh and don't forget Adv. AMS and Chaff which are going to add to the turmoil.

[Dymlos2003]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Can't balance LRM's right now. It's not possible.

At all.

Too many different systems effect them.

To balance LRM's you need to turn off:

UAV
Artemis
TAG
ECM
AMS
Adv Target Decay
NARC

While those items are effecting LRM's, you cannot balance them.

Oh and don't forget Adv. AMS and Chaff which are going to add to the turmoil.

There are a lot of people like this person. They will continue to call for balance and then say you can't balance it. Weapon balance is pretty good right now and a speed increase would help LRMS.

[Josef Nader]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Can't balance LRM's right now. It's not possible.

At all.

Too many different systems effect them.

To balance LRM's you need to turn off:

UAV
Artemis
TAG
ECM
AMS
Adv Target Decay
NARC

While those items are effecting LRM's, you cannot balance them.

Oh and don't forget Adv. AMS and Chaff which are going to add to the turmoil.

Balance can't happen in a vacuum. If you balance LRMs without all those factors and then reintroduce those factors back into the system, they will be just as broken as they were before the balance attempt.

[Sandpit]

Aym, on 26 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.

Well he said too much speed would negate AMS. I think it's more of finding that sweet spot where they're more effective without throwing the other systems out of balance

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Balance can't happen in a vacuum. If you balance LRMs without all those factors and then reintroduce those factors back into the system, they will be just as broken as they were before the balance attempt.

Then maybe we should stop having so many systems effect LRM's?

Ever thought of that? [redacted]
Here is the thing.

If you balance LRM's with ECM and AMS in mind, they are automatically overpowered when ECM and AMS aren't in play.

If you balance them without ECM or AMS in mind, they are underpowered when ECM and AMS are in play.

And add to that, multiple launchers sizes, the fact that you can boat them and that there are 5 other systems aside from ECM and AMS in play. And you have a MESS to balance.

Edited by miSs, 27 February 2014 - 11:27 AM.
inappropriate

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Well he said too much speed would negate AMS. I think it's more of finding that sweet spot where they're more effective without throwing the other systems out of balance

AMS - Anti Missile System. Not "Impervious Missile Shield."

Look...I know I constantly bring up TT rules, but in this case, it's relevant. In TT Battletech, the AMS system does not destroy an entire flight of incoming missiles. In fact, each AMS can only be used against one launcher's flight per turn. That means, if you have two AMS, you can't use both on a group of missiles fired from an LRM20. Just one.

People keep thinking that AMS should be some sort of impervious missile shield...it's not. It's supposed to lessen size of the cloud that's hitting you, not eliminate it.

This isn't a balancing issue. If you speed up the LRMs and they're killing you more often......then stick with your group where multiple AMS will act together to lessen the cloud. Stop being a Rambo and wandering off on your own. It's just that simple.

[627]

why not invent an overly complicated system that accelerates LRMs for the first 40% flight time and after that let them fly a looping and sllow down till max range...


LRM balance is not rocket science..

Edited by 627, 26 February 2014 - 12:17 PM.

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 26 February 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

AMS - Anti Missile System. Not "Impervious Missile Shield."

Look...I know I constantly bring up TT rules, but in this case, it's relevant. In TT Battletech, the AMS system does not destroy an entire flight of incoming missiles. In fact, each AMS can only be used against one launcher's flight per turn. That means, if you have two AMS, you can't use both on a group of missiles fired from an LRM20. Just one.

People keep thinking that AMS should be some sort of impervious missile shield...it's not. It's supposed to lessen size of the cloud that's hitting you, not eliminate it.

This isn't a balancing issue. If you speed up the LRMs and they're killing you more often......then stick with your group where multiple AMS will act together to lessen the cloud. Stop being a Rambo and wandering off on your own. It's just that simple.

Since when does AMS destroy an entire flight of missiles? The ONLY time I see this is when you have multiples stacked up in a tight group somewhere. I can get hits on target with an LRM5 against AMS

[Odins Fist]

Willard Phule, on 26 February 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

AMS - Anti Missile System. Not "Impervious Missile Shield."

Look...I know I constantly bring up TT rules, but in this case, it's relevant. In TT Battletech, the AMS system does not destroy an entire flight of incoming missiles. In fact, each AMS can only be used against one launcher's flight per turn. That means, if you have two AMS, you can't use both on a group of missiles fired from an LRM20. Just one.

NEWS FLASH : MWO is "NOT" BattleTech Tabletop, it never has been and never will be, that's just the reality of the situation and has been since the very begining.
Not everything can be translated well from TT to MWO, some things will never translate exactly the way they are from TT to MWO. The (perceived) AMS issue is but one very small grain of sand on the beach that is MWO at the moment.

MWO seems to be improving, slowly but still improving. The UI 2.0 needs some work, but at least it is a step forward in some ways. Weapons balance is ongoing, and since technically AMS is a weapon system used to SHOOT down enemy missiles, then I would have to guess that AMS will be looked at according to it's importance in the grand scheme of things.

I remember the LRM Apocalypse in closed Beta, it might as well have been the biblical flood in the story of Noah's Ark, and it should never be allowed again, that was the first time any of my friends that played MWO decided to take a break for an extended period of time, since then I have seen some of the same (and others) decide to leave MWO for good due to other quite obvious issues/lack of development.
I think the DEVs will have to be very careful how they tweak LRMs, even with anti missile counter measures that are currently in place in MWO.

[SweetJackal]

The problem with LRMs is how MWO has handled Range Compression.

In the TT LRMs were a means to provide high amounts of damage at a range that is nearly unmatched. The only weapon that beat their range was the AC/2 which has a low Damage/Tonnage ratio. To be marked against this strength LRMs spread their damage, have a high cost in Tonnage and Crits as well as require ammo.

MWO comes along and doubles the max range of all Energy Weapons and triples the max range of all Ballistic Weapons. These weapons get linear damage decay past their TT Max Range to deal 0 damage past their MWO Max Range. The TT Max Range got renamed Optimum Range.

LRM Max Range has remained unchanged.

Where does this leave the game? We have long range engagements with ERLLs, ERPPCs, AC/5s and AC/2s that are tagging damage out at or beyond LRM range. LRM Boats, mechs that specialized themselves to unload their payload at extreme ranges and used that range as a safety net are instead forced into the danger zone where high damage direct fire weapons can actually hit them.

Extreme Range Sniping becomes a problem due to the nature of pin point damage, film grain is used to obscure mechs at longer range, fluffed as the lower resolution on the screens that display the world around us and make the game look a lot uglier.

What can be done? Many things. Ballistics can get only Double their max TT Range (or Optimum Range) with Linear Decay and Energy could get non-linear decay to make the weapons more different. Or you could double the LRM range and apply a 1% missile death rate per 2% past optimum range they travel so only 50% of the volley will land. Gives larger launchers like the LRM20 a purpose.

Then again I've found out time and time again that my views are "On An Island" and to be dismissed without consideration. So take it all with a grain of salt.

[Josef Nader]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Then maybe we should stop having so many systems effect LRM's?

Ever thought of that? [redacted]
If you balance LRM's with ECM and AMS in mind, they are automatically overpowered when ECM and AMS aren't in play.

If you balance them without ECM or AMS in mind, they are underpowered when ECM and AMS are in play.

And add to that, multiple launchers sizes, the fact that you can boat them and that there are 5 other systems aside from ECM and AMS in play. And you have a MESS to balance.

I do plenty of stuff that's illegal in Arizona, but that's not pertinent to this discussion.

These systems exist in Battletech, and they exist here. Ignoring them means ignoring important factors in battletech. Without usable LRMs, mechs lose the ability to use indirect fire. Indirect fire is the counter to direct fire, but it is always less powerful than direct fire as direct fire can be much more carefully targeted, so we need tools to boost the IDF to make it comparable to DF (NARC, TAG, Artemis). However, with those boosters in place there's a chance that LRMs get too powerful, as you can fire them without exposing yourself to counterfire. Enter counter-LRM tools (AMS, ECM) that are used to mitigate the power of Indirect Fire.

LRMs are the only indirect fire option in the game right now, and indirect fire is extremely important to a great number of strategies in Battletech. That's why there have to be so many influencing factors to LRMs.

Of course, you'd rather imply that I take it up the arse (or that this is somehow a bad thing if I do) than have any sort of meaningful discussion on how this game is balanced.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

I do plenty of stuff that's illegal in Arizona, but that's not pertinent to this discussion.

These systems exist in Battletech, and they exist here. Ignoring them means ignoring important factors in battletech. Without usable LRMs, mechs lose the ability to use indirect fire. Indirect fire is always less powerful than direct fire, as direct fire can be much more carefully targeted, so we need tools to boost the IDF to make it comparable to DF (NARC, TAG, Artemis). However, with those boosters in place there's a chance that LRMs get too powerful, as you can fire them without exposing yourself to counterfire. Enter counter-LRM tools (AMS, ECM) that are used to mitigate the power of Indirect Fire.

LRMs are the only indirect fire option in the game right now, and indirect fire is extremely important to a great number of strategies in Battletech. That's why there have to be so many influencing factors to LRMs.

Of course, you'd rather imply that I take it up the arse (or that this is somehow a bad thing if I do) than have any sort of meaningful discussion on how this game is balanced.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

If you balance LRM's with ECM and AMS in mind, they are automatically overpowered when ECM and AMS aren't in play.

If you balance them without ECM or AMS in mind, they are underpowered when ECM and AMS are in play.

And add to that, multiple launchers sizes, the fact that you can boat them and that there are 5 other systems aside from ECM and AMS in play. And you have a MESS to balance.

Answer my question then? How do you decide when LRM's are balanced? Are they balanced with ECM? Or without? With AMS? Without? How many AMS?

Are the balanced with 1 Launcher? Or 2 Launchers?

Hmm?

And I just like how you and your boy make posts back to back in almost every thread but manage to say a whole lot of nothing.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 26 February 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 26 February 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Answer my question then? How do you decide when LRM's are balanced? Are they balanced with ECM? Or without? With AMS? Without? How many AMS?

Are the balanced with 1 Launcher? Or 2 Launchers?

Hmm?

And I just like how you and your boy make posts back to back in almost every thread but manage to say a whole lot of nothing.

LRMs are balanced now. They could jsut use a little love in speed to help be more effective against 150KPH lights to be honest. There's nothing in the game that stops them from being effective if used with a little teamwork.

[Artgathan]

Aym, on 26 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.

It might help, but if I recall correctly there's a 0.5 second "dead zone" before the AMS can acquire a new target. From what I understand it works like this:

• Missiles enter AMS range
  
• AMS takes 0.5s to acquire first target
  
• Target is destroyed
  
• AMS takes 0.5s to acquire new target
  
• etc...

Lowering their health will result in faster target destruction, but the AMS is still "bottlenecked" by the need to acquire a new target (and with faster-flying missiles, they'll travel farther in this time).

[Josef Nader]

When LRMs are slightly less useful than direct fire unmodified, more powerful than direct fire with the boosters in place, and much less powerful than direct fire when counters are in place.

The LRM5 should be comparable in performance to the other 5 damage weapons (AC5, Medium Laser). Slightly worse without the modifiers, better with the positive modifiers, and much worse with the negative modifiers.

The LRM10 should be comparable in performance to the other 10 damage weapons (AC/10, PPC). Slightly worse without the modifiers, better with the positive modifiers, and much worse with the negative modifiers.

Boating them should be extremely powerful, as should boating any weapons, but it should be kept in check by the same anti-boating features we have in place. Remember, the LRM boat does not have to expose himself to counter-fire, so it's okay for him to have hard counters. Left unchecked, he would completely dominate the game and it would be impossible to advance under IDF. See: The LRMpocalypses.

As for exact numbers? Those are for fools. Let the gameplay metrics and professional developers decide those. I could make up numbers off the top of my head, but they'd be pretty useless.

[Ulysses Jacobi]

To balance LRMs, you need to make it MUCH HARDER to have a single spotter without TAG, NARC, etc. provide targeting without LOS to an enemy. Right now it is way too easy to smother a mech with missiles from many LRM boats that cannot see them. It makes running brawlers in this environment less than fun. introducing a to-hit penalty if there is no LOS would be appropriate.

Of course TAG and NARC should not invoke such a penalty.

If an LRM boat has LOS to a targte it should not be that hard to target the enemy, but right now teams of lights + LRM boats are too dominant.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 26 February 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

LRMs are balanced now. They could jsut use a little love in speed to help be more effective against 150KPH lights to be honest. There's nothing in the game that stops them from being effective if used with a little teamwork.

So tell me Sandpit.

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with no Artemis and no TAG balanced?

Is a mech with 2 LRM 15's with Artemis and TAG balanced?

What if the mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a whole team with a total of 9 AMS due to a Firestarter S, is that balanced?

What if a mech with 2 LRM 15's, Artemis and TAG goes up against a team with 7 AMS and 2 ECM?

What about a mech with 1 LRM 5 against a team with 8 AMS?

What about 3 LRM 20's with UAV, TAG, Artemis ADV Decay and the opposing team has no AMS and no ECM, is that balanced?

Please tell me which version is balanced.

Josef Nader, on 26 February 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Stuff that didn't answer my question.

Thanks for not answering my question at all?

[Rebas Kradd]

Nicholas Carlyle:

Now that you've just gotten hostile, I'll offer an equally surly response:

They are not going to remove UAV, Artemis, TAG, ECM, AMS, Adv Target Decay, and NARC. They are not going to remove seven different systems to affect just one, having gone to all the effort to establish them and followed community requests on a lot of them. They're not going to do it.

So if that's your only suggestion, it's no longer productive. And if your only remaining role is just gripe, please move on and let others discuss things.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

LRMs need attention, I'm glad the devs are beginning to take another look at them.

So, if flight speed is being investigated, and there is a concern of having them go too fast, I wonder if LRMs can have two stages/speeds?

For example, 180 to maybe 450 meters or so (open to whatever works best for range), they travel at a stock speed, hopefully faster then the current 120 m/s, going up to 200 m/s could be reasonable to test out.

Then 450 to 1000 meters, they could get a speed boost (a second stage), maybe first test them going 300 m/s or 400 m/s (having them go faster than that would be nice, but I understand why there would be concerns about that).

With something like that, LRMs shouldn't be overpowering but they get a slight boost to hit farther out than what they currently do.


What I'd also like though, is if targeting can be tweaked some so that LRMs don't seek center mass as much, where small salvos fly tight, ripping up CT's. SSRMs bone targeting is a possibility to help with this.


Also, I'd like to see stiffer penalties to LRMs when fired without LOS. And require equipment such as TAG or NARC to be able to get a lock without LOS, not simply getting our standard "R" Targeting to attain a lock if the shooter can't see the target directly.