38 replies to this topic

[Mirkk Defwode]

stjobe, on 25 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

LRMs are intended to be "support weapons" in the same way ACs or PPCs are: It's called "fire support", and is used to shape and define the battle - be it with direct-fire support or indirect-fire support.

What LRMs are absolutely, 100-percent NOT intended to be is some second-rate weapon system; they are supposed to be just as viable, just as lethal, as their indirect-fire challenged brethren in the laser, AC, and SRM categories.

Yup LRMs are just a junky support weapon and certainly aren't meant to be the primary armament to any mechs out there /sarcasm

In all seriousness. LRMs are intended to be a primary weapon that as a whole works in conjunction with other primary weapons platforms.

[101011]

stjobe, on 25 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

LRMs are intended to be "support weapons" in the same way ACs or PPCs are: It's called "fire support", and is used to shape and define the battle - be it with direct-fire support or indirect-fire support.

What LRMs are absolutely, 100-percent NOT intended to be is some second-rate weapon system; they are supposed to be just as viable, just as lethal, as their indirect-fire challenged brethren in the laser, AC, and SRM categories.

I agree that they should be fire support, however, I take issue with your statement that they should be as lethal as direct-fire weapons. I will take this opportunity to quote myself:

101011, on 18 March 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

Let's do some theoretical math. We'll assume average target speed is 64.8 mph (or 4/6). Now, let's say your 'mech armed with just a single LRM20 and one ton of ammo (120 missiles) attacks said target which is 12 hexes away. Assume that both you and the target are moving top speed (6 hexes), with the average IS pilot skill of 4/5. The to-hit roll would be 4 (base) + 2 (attacker ran) + 2 (target moved 5-6 hexes) + 2 (medium range) for a total modifier of +10.
Probablities follow:

Dealing 6 Damage spread over 2 locations: ~0.04482
Dealing 9 Damage spread over 2 locations: ~0.022491
Dealing 12 Damage spread over 3 locations: ~0.0891
Dealing 16 Damage spread over 4 locations: ~0.04482
Dealing 20 Damage spread over 4 locations: ~0.04482
Missing: .73

Now, apply this to that one ton of ammo. Immediately, 3/4 of the 6 shots are misses. Rounding down, that's four shots with no damage. Now, you have two shots, with 40 potential damage. Theoretically, the majority of the time, those shots will do 12 damage to 3 random locations each, for a total of 24 damage to 6 random locations, tending towards the CT, per ton of ammo. Compare that to MWO.

While this doesn't apply fully, I think that if we follow through with some more glorious math, we can figure it out. Assuming the same 4/6 movement on TT and the standard skill levels, at a new distance of 10 hexes (doesn't affect LRM stats) using an Autocannon 10. Again, the to-hit roll would be 4 (base) + 2 (attacker ran) + 2 (target moved 5-6 hexes) + 2 (medium range) for a modifier of +10. Now, we have the same probability of hitting, 0.27, however, once you hit, it is a guaranteed 10 damage to any location. The probability of your LRM 20 dealing 12+ damage is 0.17, and that damage is then spread out over several locations. Best case scenario, there is a (0.166)⁴, or approximately a 0.0007 chance that 20 damage hits the same location. For any damage values spread over 3 locations, it's only a 0.00426 chance, and those spread over two, just 0.0277 chance. So, I'll update the probability table, assuming that we want all the damage grouped together in the CT.

Dealing 6 Damage: ~0.001242
Dealing 9 Damage: ~0.000623
Dealing 12 Damage: ~0.000379
Dealing 16 Damage: ~0.000031
Dealing 20 Damage: ~0.000031

For the AC, it's much gentler: (0.27)(0.166) = 0.045 chance that you deal 10 damage to the center torso. If you want to put a target down in TT as quickly as possible, you choose direct-fire.

For those who don't want numbers; you're ~36 times as likely to hit the CT on a 'mech with full damage using an AC than you are using a LRM 20 in TT. Food for thought.

Edited by 101011, 25 March 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Bearing also in mind that those who use,and are good with LRMs only have about a 40-45% accuracy which only increased by about 2% after the patch.

[stjobe]

101011, on 25 March 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

I agree that they should be fire support, however, I take issue with your statement that they should be as lethal as direct-fire weapons. I will take this opportunity to quote myself:

[math snip]

For those who don't want numbers; you're ~36 times as likely to hit the CT on a 'mech with full damage using an AC than you are using a LRM 20 in TT. Food for thought.

And that's why I've been pleading and arguing for burst-fire ACs for the last 6-12 months or so; keep in mind that the only weapon that still do their damage like the TT direct-fire weapons did are the ACs and PPCs. Lasers do their damage much more akin to the LRMs in your example.

As for whether LRMs are as lethal as direct fire or not, well I won't argue your maths; as far as I can tell it's good - and it's the way it works in MWO as well (with the not-so-small difference of lasers I noted above); however, it is instant-damage (not direct-fire) weapons that are much more lethal than any other type.

Now I'll leave it up to you to compare MWO lasers to LRMs, SRMs to LRMs, heck, anything but ACs and PPCs are much on the same playing field; it's only those two that play in a league of their own.

I'd like them to come play with the rest of the weapons.

[101011]

Yes, I fully agree that Autocannons should be burst-fire.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 24 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

By not following the simple rule of making changes in small steps Paul Innouye has caused several "LRM Apocalypses" without learning from his previous actions.

This should be a clue that PGI considers LRMs a counter strategy to hill-humping and pop-tarting. They are trying to find a balance where LRMs can be used to suppress enemy entrenchments without having a major impact on other game play.

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 24 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Ghost heat failed to truly correct high damage alpha strike advantages while further limiting the choices of mech making mechs such as the Battlemaster and other predominately energy based mechs highly disadvantage.

Actually it all but eliminated 6 and 4 PPC stalkers which were commonplace. It also reduced the number of dual AC20 mechs as well. All in all I would say Ghost heat had the effect it was supposed.
You use Battlemaster as an example but Battlemasters uses 6 Md Lasers, unaffected by ghost heat. I think you mean Awesome, which was fundamentally displaced from its default configuration. However if I recall, the Awesome was abandoned long before that, the day the Stalker was released.

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 24 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Changes made to the Victor and the Highlander have only provided a short term stop gap to the issue of jump sniping being utterly dominant close and long range while completely ruining the entire purpose of using a Victor, a light assault mech with extreme maneuverability. The viability of using a Victor as a brawler has been greatly diminished in the name of solving "pop sniping."

I’m going to stop you right there. If you want to have “extreme maneuverability”, play a medium mech. You don’t get it both ways, assault tonnage and medium agility. Your man-crush on the Victor not withstanding it is just another assault mech, and while it is fast for an assault mech”, it shouldn’t be as agile as Heavy or Medium chassis.

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 24 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

1. Reduce LRM speed to 135 M/S, weapons should be balanced for how they are intended to be used in this example, LRMs are intended to be support weapons.
2. Reduce terrain movement penalties so mechs can climb slopes up to 60 degrees.
3. Reduce laser duration to .75 seconds while increasing reload speed to 3.75 seconds in order to maintain fire rate. Reduce pulse laser duration to .5 seconds while increasing reload speed to 3.35 seconds to maintain fire rate.
4. Increase Gauss Rifle charge dissipation to 5 seconds while increasing the charge time to 1 second (the idea is to be able to turn the gauss rifle into a weapon capable of hitting mechs hopping in and out of cover while limiting it's use as a brawling weapon from a longer charge time. Currently the gauss rifle isn't effective against people using cover effectively.) The gauss rifle will also only explode when holding a charge to discourage players from unnecessarily holding a charge.
5. Fix SRM hit detection, I understand this might not be viable at present,
6. Reduce ghost heat penalties by 10% , the changes being made increase the danger of getting too close with PPCs. As it stands a mech carrying Exclusively PPCs will be useless within 90 meters, taking such a mech would be an extreme risk.
7. Set the Highlander and Victor to pre-nerf levels. The changes to Jump Jet handling were acceptable while the ground based handling changes were completely uncalled for.

1. If LRMs are support weapons what are Artillery and Airstrikes? LRMs have always been a primary weapon in battletech, and they are currently the best counter to poptarts.
2. to what end? The allow all mechs to ignore all terrain. To make hill-humping and poptarting easier with the reduced jump jets?
3. I’m not going to say Lasers don’t need a look, but making them closer to pulse lasers may not be the solution.
4. I like the idea of it only exploding when charged.
5. I believe they are currently working on SRMs, which are definitely problematic.
6. I am not sure where you are going with this. Looking at Smurfy’s, a 10% ghost heat change to PPCs means 3 PPCs will generate 40.6 heat instead of 42.6 heat.
7. Wrong direction. Assault mechs should all have Huge movement archetype, and being out maneuvered by light and medium mechs in open terrain should be a real concern. Both of those mechs already have the benefit of a good arm hardpoints and arm targeting reticules that provide a massive firing arc.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 25 March 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[Rokuzachi]

101011, on 25 March 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Yes, I fully agree that Autocannons should be burst-fire.

Totally in love with the high volume burst one. Looks great, sounds great, and does a nice job of helping to address the pinpoint alpha issue.

[Daekar]

101011, on 25 March 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Yes, I fully agree that Autocannons should be burst-fire.

How have I missed this video before now!? I like several of the middle speed versions. Can we make this happen?

[101011]

This was one of Konivings older videos from CB; IIRC the thread wasn't all that popular for some reason (the cynical side of me guesses that most people prefer whining to suggestions), but I really liked it. I really hope we'll get this, or something like this, eventually, but it may be a bit late for that, sadly.

[DeathlyEyes]

stjobe, on 25 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

LRMs are intended to be "support weapons" in the same way ACs or PPCs are: It's called "fire support", and is used to shape and define the battle - be it with direct-fire support or indirect-fire support.

What LRMs are absolutely, 100-percent NOT intended to be is some second-rate weapon system; they are supposed to be just as viable, just as lethal, as their indirect-fire challenged brethren in the laser, AC, and SRM categories.

Fun fact in table top it's incredibly difficult to hit lights with LRMs moving fast, the roll to hit modifier to hit them is fairly difficult. As it stands it seems to be about the same chances of hitting anything with LRMs. I honestly don't get where you are getting your information on how they are intended to be use.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 25 March 2014 - 05:00 PM.

[BFett]

I agree with DeathlyEyes on all of the points except for the following.

Point number 4, give the Gauss Rifle a 10 second cool down after every shot, slow the projectile speed down to the AC5's speed, and remove the recharge mechanic.

Point number 6, remove ghost heat (heat scaling) across all weapons.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bagheera, on 25 March 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Funny how much of this sort of thing would go away if there was a test server with decent uptime and regular updates where balance tuning and bug fixes could be tested.

Judging from these forums, what makes you think that doing this on a test server would yield any kind of consensus?

[Davers]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 25 March 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

Fun fact in table top it's incredibly difficult to hit lights with LRMs moving fast, the roll to hit modifier to hit them is fairly difficult. As it stands it seems to be about the same chances of hitting anything with LRMs. I honestly don't get where you are getting your information on how they are intended to be use.

Fun fact: Moving fast gives the same penalty whether firing LRMs or lasers, or ACs.

[Mirkk Defwode]

101011, on 25 March 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Yes, I fully agree that Autocannons should be burst-fire.

I love the variants and the UI prototype for that. This is exactly along the lines of what I've been proposing for an overhaul. Just need to do this to all weapon classes, and the add-on electronics packages.

[WVAnonymous]

TL;DR;QQ

[Zerberus]

Bagheera, on 25 March 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Funny how much of this sort of thing would go away if there was a test server with decent uptime and regular updates where balance tuning and bug fixes could be tested.

I honestly doubt it. I believe most of the Cryhards are too preppy to submit themselves to a "buggy test environment" (their words, not mine), and more importantly it would take time away from working on their precious K/D raito.

They would still be whining 30 seconds after the patch notes go live.

Edited by Zerberus, 25 March 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[mekabuser]

@Op.. I hear ya.. Nice reception you got eh? Its hard to accept it but theres nothing you can do . For one, you have the Wk/s etc, but the real problem is you could write up the answer that makes everyone happy and pgi a billion usd and it wouldnt make one ounce of difference..

I wish someone could finally explain how MY lock on target allows some lrm douche noodle to just sit back and wait till he sees the little diamond that means press fire.. WHO THOUGht up that mechanic?

anyways, OP, the game is gonna be what it is.. Once you accept this is not the domain of your dreams you can move on .

this version of MW is kinda like the hobbit.. .Seriously flawed, enjoyable i guess here and there, but nothing GREAT.

at least maps like manifold, crimson, tourmaline have been decent

[A Man In A Can]

mekabuser, on 25 March 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

I wish someone could finally explain how MY lock on target allows some lrm douche noodle to just sit back and wait till he sees the little diamond that means press fire.. WHO THOUGht up that mechanic?

0t 0c Free MW3-esque C3i that has been there since early closed beta. Except unlike the board game where it affects every long range weapon (including direct fire weapons) it was decided that such a system was better suited for role warfare revolving around the use of indirectly fired LRMs and their spotters/counter-spotters/brawlers, and having it be part of the standard sensor package would ensure the highest chance of the system working in a random-battle environment. They even added in the automatic targeting feature if someone stares at a target within range for long enough to counter people who consciously refuse to assist the system.

It actually is quite the innovative system. But it requires strong indirect-fire LRMs for people to want to take advantage of it. Which naturally starts the cycle of counter-LRM and counter-counter-LRM tactics. So expect to see ECM use spike up and UAV Narc TAG PPC and BAP use increase along with the appropriate issue threads, and smart uses of cover and closing tactics for each map being discovered allowing brawlers to close in.

So yeah the game is going to be what it's going to be at the pace it is going to happen. No amount of words will change that fact. And once the players learn this truth, life in general gets a lot easier.

Edited by Mechwarrior Mousse, 25 March 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[Tekadept]

hmmm

http://www.themornin...of-open-letters

Edited by Tekadept, 26 March 2014 - 02:15 AM.