88 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Reads as: for NARC to work against an ECM carrier, the shooter of the NARC would also need to carry BAP and stay within 120m? (or have a second unit with BAP)

Clarify please.

I was looking at that earlier when I didn't have time to think about it... (re-reading my own stuff because I like the look of my own type.. you know.)

I think the counter to NARC was in its own category.. (I can't remember the most recent NARC changes, but the endstate I would like would be that NARC *would* be countered by ECM within 180 meters of the pod.)

Prezimonto, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

I can dig it.

UAV's do also provide LoS for locks/targeting information.... since they also current counter ECM (and you list that as a change, I'm not sure which way you'd like to go.. full info, or a different change?)

From what i remember, UAV's can *see* through ECM, but they don't counter it, you still have an eternity to lock on...if you even can.

Prezimonto, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

I would add to BAP that they can see the ECM bubble on the HUD map if it's within their sensor range. I would also add that if a mech in range has a command module they can share that information to the command mech, who can share it out to all mechs in range.

I can get behind that- although I might skip the Command Console Middleman, and just have the BAP broadcast the dead-zone on the minimap. (Just to reiterate: This includes removing the enemy ECM icon from a player's target information, unless it is specifically detected by a BAP.)

Prezimonto, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

I might suggest that instead of really huge spread, LRM's remove indirect fire as an option without a signal from a target with a TAG/NARC/Command Module equipped mech with targeting information within range.

I cannot support this particular item as it is largely the same problem that ECM is giving now. (Unable to lock without external gear.)
Since games are largely random matches (and that will be the case even when CWars does eventually arrive in the IRL 3050) that would hamstring the LRMs in public games.
In directfire/LoS engagements, LRMs pale in comparison to ballistic and energy weapons (if for no other reason than not being able to torso twist after pulling the trigger) so having them entirely limited to direct fire without specific friendly gear would, I think, abolish them from random play.
Even in an organized team game, no mech is going to want to sit and keep their weapons pointed at the enemy (presenting their CT) for the duration of *your* missile flight.

Prezimonto, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

This actually would severely limit the upper potential of LRM mechs and discourage boating LRM's without heavy support. It would also allow for LRM's to get tweaks to damage/speed/path to help smaller launchers. I still agree, more spread is good at the base, and something to deal with boating needs to be done. Your solution there is as good or better than most I've heard.

I think the missile spread would discourage boating fairly well, especially since at normal level, they wouldn't be devastating and would need a lot of heavy gear to get to where being a missile turret is worth it.

Trauglodyte, on 09 April 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

Back to the discussion, I was always a favor of a forced lock-on delay based on the number of systems being tied into the targetting equipment. Artemis, TAG, and NARC would, of course, continue to drop the lock-on time but tying in more than two such guided systems would force an information overload. It is the reason why we run drones and AWAC systems in theater today.

+1!
Later when I have a chance, I'll edit that into the OP if you don't mind that I do it.

[Prezimonto]

Livewyr, on 09 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

I can get behind that- although I might skip the Command Console Middleman, and just have the BAP broadcast the dead-zone on the minimap. (Just to reiterate: This includes removing the enemy ECM icon from a player's target information, unless it is specifically detected by a BAP.)

I see what you're talking about now. ECM has been broken for so long I forget there's the longer target lock underlying the "main" feature... mostly because it only happens in a really narrow 50m ish band for LRM users. So, I think you're correct, it cuts through the "stealth" (and later just provides LoS). Post your fix it would actually counter ECM's longer lock times as well as provide line of sight.

Livewyr, on 09 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

I can get behind that- although I might skip the Command Console Middleman, and just have the BAP broadcast the dead-zone on the minimap. (Just to reiterate: This includes removing the enemy ECM icon from a player's target information, unless it is specifically detected by a BAP.)

I'm not attached to the Command Console idea... just trying to think up ways to help flesh out what it can/should do.

Livewyr, on 09 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

I cannot support this particular item as it is largely the same problem that ECM is giving now. (Unable to lock without external gear.)
Since games are largely random matches (and that will be the case even when CWars does eventually arrive in the IRL 3050) that would hamstring the LRMs in public games.
In directfire/LoS engagements, LRMs pale in comparison to ballistic and energy weapons (if for no other reason than not being able to torso twist after pulling the trigger) so having them entirely limited to direct fire without specific friendly gear would, I think, abolish them from random play.
Even in an organized team game, no mech is going to want to sit and keep their weapons pointed at the enemy (presenting their CT) for the duration of *your* missile flight.

I realize they pale by comparison, but if you remove most ability to use indirect fire, they become a long range support tool for mechs with one launcher again. Not many weapons can reach out 1000m and do damage, and if you take away the indirect fire portion of LRMs from most situations you can then also buff the individual missile speed, improve it's fire arc, and up the damage a little... all that will make small launchers more viable.

To be clear, I'm not attached to my ideas here any more than yours, just tossing out some counter proposals.

Livewyr, on 09 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

I think the missile spread would discourage boating fairly well, especially since at normal level, they wouldn't be devastating and would need a lot of heavy gear to get to where being a missile turret is worth it.

I do agree that boating is a problem, and this is a solution. As I noted I'd still also like to see total missile tubes fixed on mechs based on stock configurations: an SRM2 might double as an LRM5, but nothing else. Replacing the SRM2 with an SRM4 should cause a ripple fire. Replacing it with the LRM5 you get a 5 tube single fire, but a larger LRM will also riple fire. This would reign in many of the missile boats when combined with a wider base spread and a spread penalty for over 40 tubes.

As someone else noted, a longer time to lock when over the tube limit on your mech might also work: +0.1 seconds to base time to lock for every missile fired over the tube limit of your mech. You could also add a -0.1 to the lock decay time for every missile over the tube limit of your mech. A stock Atlas would then have a 1 second longer time to lock for missiles and lose that lock 1 second more quickly. It's launcher is meant for short direct fire engagements while it closes distances.

Edited by Prezimonto, 09 April 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

The problem crops up mostly with the "pop & spot" technique where a mech literally pops up, locks and instantaneously one of more mechs have missiles in the air.

That's generally because the guy with the missiles knows where the target is,he just doesn't have LOS and is waiting for the pop-spotter to put a TAG on it, which cuts lockon time down enough to allow a easy launch off the time the spotter's in the air. It's the equivalent of sighting in on a ridge you know the other guy is going to walk over with your Gauss rifles ready to cycle. Minimal reaction required.

Again, it's a concealment vs. cover issue. Breaking LOS doesn't provide actual cover, it only prevents missiles until someone restores LOS. That is, it's transitory protection at best, and false security most of the time- one that a pop-up spotter removes simply by getting a visual.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 10 April 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

It's the equivalent of sighting in on a ridge you know the other guy is going to walk over with your Gauss rifles ready to cycle. Minimal reaction required.

You sound like you are familiar with sighting in a 50 Cal to do this Wanderer! I remember our classes in Bootcamp, one of them said the very same thing about how to use the 50 Cal machine gun as a sniping weapon!!!

[DaZur]

wanderer, on 10 April 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

That's generally because the guy with the missiles knows where the target is,he just doesn't have LOS and is waiting for the pop-spotter to put a TAG on it, which cuts lockon time down enough to allow a easy launch off the time the spotter's in the air. It's the equivalent of sighting in on a ridge you know the other guy is going to walk over with your Gauss rifles ready to cycle. Minimal reaction required.

Again, it's a concealment vs. cover issue. Breaking LOS doesn't provide actual cover, it only prevents missiles until someone restores LOS. That is, it's transitory protection at best, and false security most of the time- one that a pop-up spotter removes simply by getting a visual.

Understood and agree to a point.

I'm not talking about being re-locked by a spotter... I'm talking about the inability to shake that initial lock even having quickly broken that LoS and taken evasive maneuvers.

That said, If I get notice of incoming missiles, break LoS, move 100m laterally but yet still get hit by those missiles... the decay is just too long.

The present flight speed and decay of the lock combined mitigates tactical avoidance at all but the full extend of the Missiles range.

Mind you, I'm presently comfortable with the LRMs and mitigating their impact on my game-play... That said, if I had any say in giving targeted mechs a means to assume a defensive posture... I'd reduce both the default and module decay timeouts.

Edited by DaZur, 10 April 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[Livewyr]

I could see reducing the time TD and ATD modules now that LRMs are faster... but not by that much.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Livewyr, on 10 April 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

I could see reducing the time TD and ATD modules now that LRMs are faster... but not by that much.

Doesn't matter, LRM's still aren't worth jack and crap.

Even if you moved them back to 175ms, all they were good for was taking advantage of a bunch of people who hadn't had to deal with LRM's in a year.

Might as well just keep nerfing them. I'm done trying to use them at this point.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 10 April 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

Doesn't matter, LRM's still aren't worth jack and crap.

Even if you moved them back to 175ms, all they were good for was taking advantage of a bunch of people who hadn't had to deal with LRM's in a year.

Might as well just keep nerfing them. I'm done trying to use them at this point.

They also slow down the experienced players a bit. Having to take cover CAN stall a powerful charge/push.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

They also slow down the experienced players a bit. Having to take cover CAN stall a powerful charge/push.

A few well placed shots with AC/5's and PPC's have the same effect, plus actually do damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 10 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

A few well placed shots with AC/5's and PPC's have the same effect, plus actually do damage.

Potato pahtahto.

[Corbon Zackery]

They are overpowered.

The damage should be .08 and speed should be 120m/s

Its the dumbest weapon in the game point click and shoot. Wow how challenging.

Major changes need to be done if the speed is going to stay at 160m/s.

Slower rate of fire: So you can't just link fire spam shoot a guy to death at 200 to 550 meters

Angle and downward arch: This is a huge problem since it ignores about 50% of the Low to Medium terrain.

Angle of launch at 700 to 1000 meters these missile seem to launch extremely high allowing them to clear canyon walls.

Spread of missile: when fired without line of sight.

UAV: Detection treats it as a spot from a light. Duration needs to be lower or have it show enemy positions yet not provide target locks.

Possible selector forcing the LRM pilot to chose from indirect fire to direct fire.

Just major a overhaul to bring them back in line with other weapons. 160m/s was a good start but more needs to be done quickly.

LRM ruined the game during closed beta so they should be constantly looked at with a microscope to make sure they are in balance with the game.

We shouldn't be swayed by micro calculations done by a power gamer who packs 100 missiles on a stalker and 7tons of ammo launches a UAV and blows away a whole team.

http://youtu.be/DYQKiTkHe0g

This no guts not galaxy vid is a perfect example of how overpowered the LRMs are one UAV destroys the whole team who is under full cover of the H7 hill at no point and time does the missile boat have line of sight to any of the mech and that's a big hill. This vid dooms your whole post.

[Roadkill]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 10 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

A few well placed shots with AC/5's and PPC's have the same effect, plus actually do damage.

Actually I'm with Joe on this one. Betty's warning has bizarre psychological effects on players. If there's a push coming, getting missiles inbound on 2-3 of the pushers is virtually guaranteed to scatter it and cause it to fail. Nailing 2-3 of them with AC5/PPC won't stop them, though it will soften them up a bit.

So it sort of depends on what you need. If you're about to be overrun by a larger force, a few volleys of missiles might save the day. But if it's otherwise approximately a fair fight, then a few alphas of AC5/PPC is probably a better solution.

It also depends on range. If the push is too close, missiles aren't any more effective than direct fire at stalling the push. The damage happens too close to Betty's warning. There's something about the possibility of preventing the incoming damage that causes people to irrationally break off what they were doing.

Sort of like chasing squirrels.

[Joseph Mallan]

Corbon Zackery, on 10 April 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

They are overpowered.

The damage should be .08 and speed should be 120m/s

Its the dumbest weapon in the game point click and shoot. Wow how challenging.

Sorry I got hung up here... Which weapons again cause I do this with lasers, missiles and ballistics???

[Roadkill]

Corbon Zackery, on 10 April 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

This no guts not galaxy vid is a perfect example of how overpowered the LRMs are one UAV destroys the whole team who is under full cover of the H7 hill

They're not under cover if they get destroyed by LRMs. I don't even have to watch the video to know that.

Might have had concealment, but as already discussed concealment != cover. Indirect fire by its very nature voids concealment if you have a spotter... that's sort of the point.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roadkill, on 10 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Actually I'm with Joe on this one. Betty's warning has bizarre psychological effects on players. If there's a push coming, getting missiles inbound on 2-3 of the pushers is virtually guaranteed to scatter it and cause it to fail. Nailing 2-3 of them with AC5/PPC won't stop them, though it will soften them up a bit.

So it sort of depends on what you need. If you're about to be overrun by a larger force, a few volleys of missiles might save the day. But if it's otherwise approximately a fair fight, then a few alphas of AC5/PPC is probably a better solution.

It also depends on range. If the push is too close, missiles aren't any more effective than direct fire at stalling the push. The damage happens too close to Betty's warning. There's something about the possibility of preventing the incoming damage that causes people to irrationally break off what they were doing.

Sort of like chasing squirrels.

That's fine, but you don't need an LRM boat to do that. You need an LRM 5 and a ton of ammo.

I know a bunch of people who do that.

Roadkill, on 10 April 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

They're not under cover if they get destroyed by LRMs. I don't even have to watch the video to know that.

Might have had concealment, but as already discussed concealment != cover. Indirect fire by its very nature voids concealment if you have a spotter... that's sort of the point.

Yeah I really do believe we need to have a discussion about cover vs. concealment.

Seems like a lot of people don't understand this concept.

Especially with weapons that have an arc.

I'm seeing this coming up a lot in threads.

[Joseph Mallan]

Corbon Zackery, on 10 April 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

They are overpowered.

The damage should be .08 and speed should be 120m/s

Its the dumbest weapon in the game point click and shoot. Wow how challenging.

Major changes need to be done if the speed is going to stay at 160m/s.

Slower rate of fire: So you can't just link fire spam shoot a guy to death at 200 to 550 meters

Angle and downward arch: This is a huge problem since it ignores about 50% of the Low to Medium terrain.

Angle of launch at 700 to 1000 meters these missile seem to launch extremely high allowing them to clear canyon walls.

Spread of missile: when fired without line of sight.

UAV: Detection treats it as a spot from a light. Duration needs to be lower or have it show enemy positions yet not provide target locks.

Possible selector forcing the LRM pilot to chose from indirect fire to direct fire.

Just major a overhaul to bring them back in line with other weapons. 160m/s was a good start but more needs to be done quickly.

LRM ruined the game during closed beta so they should be constantly looked at with a microscope to make sure they are in balance with the game.

We shouldn't be swayed by micro calculations done by a power gamer who packs 100 missiles on a stalker and 7tons of ammo launches a UAV and blows away a whole team.

http://youtu.be/DYQKiTkHe0g

This no guts not galaxy vid is a perfect example of how overpowered the LRMs are one UAV destroys the whole team who is under full cover of the H7 hill at no point and time does the missile boat have line of sight to any of the mech and that's a big hill. This vid dooms your whole post.

Good scouting in that video. As RoadKill just said Concealment=/=Cover.

[Fut]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 10 April 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yeah I really do believe we need to have a discussion about cover vs. concealment.

Seems like a lot of people don't understand this concept.

Especially with weapons that have an arc.

I'm seeing this coming up a lot in threads.

It really shouldn't be necessary though - isn't it common sense?

[Roadkill]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

Good scouting in that video. As RoadKill just said Concealment=/=Cover.

Just watched the video. As expected, it was a bunch of bads getting whomped by a coordinated team.

LRMs played a part, but they weren't dominating. The coordinated push that occurred after the UAV went up is what caused the stomp. Sure the UAV and LRMs are what allowed the coordinated push to happen, but really they were just a distraction.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fut, on 10 April 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

It really shouldn't be necessary though - isn't it common sense?

Common sense and Military intelligence do not go hand in hand Fut.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Fut, on 10 April 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

It really shouldn't be necessary though - isn't it common sense?

In terms of this gaming community, no, it does not seem to be common sense.