37 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

I suggest doing away with the semi-fire-and-forget model of LRM control.

Instead, we should use a modified wire-guide system.

Aim your cross hair at a target and fire, your mech's launchers release the missiles to land at the point your crosshair is aiming. So you can guide your missiles on to the target.

Now, here where people are going to say, "But Prezi! I want my indirect fire!". And so you shall receive!

Set the scroll wheel of the mouse to adjust the landing point of your missiles relative to your cross hair. So you want fire behind a hill where you KNOW that mech is camping, because a team mate has line of sight, and you've got a lock. You fire at the ground on your side of the hill and scroll the target indicator back to the locked target... when they match you get a little visual queue telling you that's the correct depth. Now you still need to work to aim... in TWO DIRECTIONS if you want indirect fire.

Let TAG and NARC beacons automatically set the depth of your fire arc, so all you have to do is aim. This gives a really strong reason to use them, and indirect fire with LRM's becomes much easier.

ECM doesn't totally ruin your day, but it should still force the spread of missiles wider and kills indirect LRM fire effectively, without TAG or NARC.

Missile systems can now be balanced on a different set of criteria, and bringing missiles into a fight doesn't have to revolve around LOTS of launchers only. It's actually okay to put a longer flight time back into the missiles, and to normalize the spread of missile patterns between launchers... because they're still AIMED weapons.

As an added thought, because these are Long Range Missiles, I'm going to suggest that they shouldn't have a 1000m cap. I suggest that they track out to your targeting sensors (giving missile jocks a larger reason to take BAP and advanced sensor modules) and that OVER the sensor range they spread out fairly quickly, but keep traveling, and are no longer wire guided to something like 2000m where they land over a huge spread.
Thoughts?

[El Bandito]

Prezimonto, on 25 April 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

I suggest doing away with the semi-fire-and-forget model of LRM control. Instead, we should use a modified wire-guide system. Aim your cross hair at a target and fire, your mech's launchers release the missiles to land at the point your crosshair is aiming. So you can guide your missiles on to the target.

I'm gonna be legging everyone with 4xLRM15s and make people QQ in the forums if that happens.

MW4 SSRMs had that system and it was one of the most effective brawling weapon.

Edited by El Bandito, 25 April 2014 - 11:10 PM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

I actually would like to have both. Give me the option to go wire guided (technically it would be "beam" rider guidance). Fire straight out and follow the crosshair. Aiming is your problem.

I think fire and forget is nice, but I don't like relying on a TAG laser to combat ECM, which requires an extra energy hardpoint. There are just some mechs like the Shadow Hawk 2H that I don't like running LRM's on because I cannot have the TAG I feel it needs.

The simplest way to do this would be just have LRM's go into crosshair chase mode if you don't have a lock.

[Khobai]

IMO MRMs should reticle steer. SRMs and LRMs should be guided. And SSRMs should be superguided. But id be okay with having the option to switch between wire guided or auto-guided like streaks in MWLL.

Edited by Khobai, 26 April 2014 - 12:40 AM.

[Lyoto Machida]

I'd be all for trying one of these other methods named...so long as it causes less crying on the forums.

[El Bandito]

Lyoto Machida, on 26 April 2014 - 12:38 AM, said:

I'd be all for trying one of these other methods named...so long as it causes less crying on the forums.

Wire guided is going to make a lot of people cry. The ability to target individual parts is Lurmers' dream come true.

Edited by El Bandito, 26 April 2014 - 04:52 AM.

[Prezimonto]

El Bandito, on 25 April 2014 - 11:00 PM, said:

I'm gonna be legging everyone with 4xLRM15s and make people QQ in the forums if that happens.

MW4 SSRMs had that system and it was one of the most effective brawling weapon.

I don't think this would be a huge issue. LRM's can't be brawling weapons (not very well) because of the short range limitation. In addition, I'd think they'd still fire up high and come down at an angle, so hitting legs with tons of damage would be harder than the rest of the mech (learning to lead a moving mech or make a last second adjustment between missing and hitting). Finally, I'd suggest that a good trade for "beam guidance" would be longer flight times again. This would preserve the weapon as something to be used a longer ranges when the enemy has a harder time bringing so mech damage to bear on your mech.

Hans Von Lohman, on 26 April 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

I actually would like to have both. Give me the option to go wire guided (technically it would be "beam" rider guidance). Fire straight out and follow the crosshair. Aiming is your problem.

I think fire and forget is nice, but I don't like relying on a TAG laser to combat ECM, which requires an extra energy hardpoint. There are just some mechs like the Shadow Hawk 2H that I don't like running LRM's on because I cannot have the TAG I feel it needs.

The simplest way to do this would be just have LRM's go into crosshair chase mode if you don't have a lock.

I agree that both would be amazing, except, it doesn't really fix any of the issues we currently have by allowing a the overall numbers of missiles/damage/flight time/ ect.. to be re-tweaked. It would be a straight buff to missile systems.... which would need other nerfs, and make indirect fire very costly again.

I suggested the mouse wheel to shift depth because a player could still adjust the landing target to a mech in the distance that leaves view while you're watching (a semi-indirect fire), but true indirect fire would still need a secondary spotter and/or TAG/NARC.

What I do know is that I hate that ECM totally shuts LRM's down.. leaving those mechs with a 50m window in brawling range to use missiles. Yes, I know there's counters, but that doesn't change how useless a mech with LRM's as the primary weapon system can be in a match vs. 2 or 3 ECM mechs.

Khobai, on 26 April 2014 - 12:37 AM, said:

IMO MRMs should reticle steer. SRMs and LRMs should be guided. And SSRMs should be superguided. But id be okay with having the option to switch between wire guided or auto-guided like streaks in MWLL.

I toyed with the idea of suggesting that you get a pop-up window (like the advanced zoom module) to guide missiles in.

The problem with this is you'd never really be firing more than one flight at a time. It might make LRM's more balanced, and much more support oriented, but I think it's be a pretty large hit to damage as well. Possibly damage of individual missiles would need to go up, this might be a really good solution to El Bandito's thoughts on hitting specific locations of a mech: essentially your dps goes way down as you only have one flight in the air at a time. Unless the camera switches to the next flight in the air.. but then you have minimal time to adjust on the far end of it's flight pattern.

Edited by Prezimonto, 26 April 2014 - 05:07 AM.

[Livewyr]

El Bandito, on 26 April 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

Wire guided is going to make a lot of people cry. The ability to target individual parts is Lurmers' dream come true.

The only way to reduce crying about "OP" LRMs on the forums.. is to remove LRMs.

Self-centered (and bad) players will ignore everything but the "it's guided" aspect and cry about the lame OP LRMS.

[Dirus Nigh]

LRMs are not fire and forget weapons. You need to maintain a target lock by holding the reticle on target for the entire flight time off the missiles. When using LRMs for indirect fire the LRM user is reliant on a spotter maintaining the lock in order for the missile to actually hit the target.

[Prezimonto]

Dirus Nigh, on 26 April 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

LRMs are not fire and forget weapons. You need to maintain a target lock by holding the reticle on target for the entire flight time off the missiles. When using LRMs for indirect fire the LRM user is reliant on a spotter maintaining the lock in order for the missile to actually hit the target.

They are semi-fire and forget. You fire, and you no longer have to actively aim... just maintain a lock in the direction the missiles are traveling. If you actually had to aim, or as I suggest, deal with manual aiming in 2 axes you open up more room for re-balancing the whole weapon system. It also puts a larger skill cap on indirect fire, which is a good thing. It also making using the weapon system a more active process, which is also generally a good thing. Finally, it end runs ECM as a hard counter, rightfully putting it back into a soft counter vs. LRM's and a hard counter only vs. indirect fire.

[Trauglodyte]

Wire guided needs to be limited to SRMs only so that they're actually missiles.

As for LRMs a few things need to happen:

• Spread for SRMs and LRMs needs to be standardized. That SRM2s and LRM5s are to tight compared to SRM6s and LRM20s is awful. You should WANT to take the heaviest missile wrack possible but people don't because you can take 2 LRM10s to do more damage than 1 ALRM20 and SRM4s instead of ASRM6s.
  
• ALL LRM launchers need to have a ghetto Artemis so that the trajectory is flat when you have your target in LOS. There is no need for an arc when your target is right there.
  
• LRMs need to target bones like Streaks. Having a weapon system that goes for torsos only is problematic and becomes more so when dealing with light mechs as the missiles target their legs but do very little damage because of the trajectory error.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

LRMs need to target bones like Streaks. Having a weapon system that goes for torsos only is problematic and becomes more so when dealing with light mechs as the missiles target their legs but do very little damage because of the trajectory error.

This change would be sufficient in itself to fix most of the remaining issues that LRMs suffer from (the whole electronic warfare system is a separate issue). Grouping LRM volleys into flights of 5 missiles that target a mech bone would standardize behavior among launcher sizes (LRM5 has one group, 10 has 2 groups, 15 has three groups, and 20 has four groups). It would more reliably distribute damage across a mech, too, rather than focusing on the torsos like it does now (which is still a huge improvement over the head/CT sniper missiles we used to have).

[Prezimonto]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 26 April 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

This change would be sufficient in itself to fix most of the remaining issues that LRMs suffer from (the whole electronic warfare system is a separate issue). Grouping LRM volleys into flights of 5 missiles that target a mech bone would standardize behavior among launcher sizes (LRM5 has one group, 10 has 2 groups, 15 has three groups, and 20 has four groups). It would more reliably distribute damage across a mech, too, rather than focusing on the torsos like it does now (which is still a huge improvement over the head/CT sniper missiles we used to have).

I concur with the addition that it shouldn't be equally spread across all hard points like SSRMs do. LRM's should spread roughly equally across upper portions of the mech, with a very small chance to dive for the legs. Artemis should tighten all those odds up to focus more damage toward the 3 torso sections.

I'll note: Livewyr hates this mechanic before we go any further, and also ask if either you or Trauglodyte have any thoughts on the OP?

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

Wire guided needs to be limited to SRMs only so that they're actually missiles.

As for LRMs a few things need to happen:

• Spread for SRMs and LRMs needs to be standardized. That SRM2s and LRM5s are to tight compared to SRM6s and LRM20s is awful. You should WANT to take the heaviest missile wrack possible but people don't because you can take 2 LRM10s to do more damage than 1 ALRM20 and SRM4s instead of ASRM6s.
  
• ALL LRM launchers need to have a ghetto Artemis so that the trajectory is flat when you have your target in LOS. There is no need for an arc when your target is right there.

On point 1 I agree. Something else should be done to encourage smaller launchers, what we have is silly.

What I have suggested in the past:
1. eliminate the spread disparity
2. Apply ghost heat to mechs firing more missiles than they have tubes. Much like the AWS should have a "special" dispensation to fire 3PPC's and doesn't I don't care that this automatically applies some ghost heat to mechs like the Atlas. Ideally, all these cases could be dealt with via quirks.
3. slow the fire rate on second waves of missiles from launchers will less tubes than missiles.
4. limit the number of tubes on most mechs again.... SRM2 launchers shouldn't magically switch to anything other than an LRM5 by tube number. Secondly, make SRM tubes roughly 2x the size of LRM tubes to emphasize this. This limits mechs to the missile types and counts they're generally designed to carry.
5. I still agree weighted bone targeting would be a good idea, if combined with some other buffs like speed increases, better trajectories in direct fire, and more damage.

Last point, why only wire guide SRMs? As noted above, if landing an LRM spread via a little window pop-up meant limiting fire of LRM's wouldn't that be another approach to helping balance them?

[Trauglodyte]

I'm saying to only wire guide SRMs because they're the only "missiles", which are defined as guided munitions (rockets are missiles without guidance), that have no semblance of guidance. It's an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp - it makes no sense to NOT have guidance on SRMs. LRMs at least have the ability to fire guided or not.
And the TT benefit of Streaks was that they were SRMs that wouldn't fire if they didn't "hit".

Edited by Trauglodyte, 26 April 2014 - 10:44 AM.

[Musashi Alexander]

Lyoto Machida, on 26 April 2014 - 12:38 AM, said:

I'd be all for trying one of these other methods named...so long as it causes less crying on the forums.

Crying on the forums is a bit like energy, it's never created nor destroyed but just changes its form.

[Prezimonto]

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'm saying to only wire guide SRMs because they're the only "missiles", which are defined as guided munitions (rockets are missiles without guidance), that have no semblance of guidance. It's an oxymoron like jump shrimp - it makes no sense to NOT have guidance on SRMs. LRMs at least have the ability to fire guided or not.
And the TT benefit of Streaks was that they were SRMs that wouldn't fire if they didn't "hit".

What I've thought should be done for SRM's and SSRM's for a while is the following:

Soft tracking to bones. Both systems can be fired with a lock, and bone target, but the missiles will only shift to hit a target by about 30° off the center of the firing line. This give both weapons systems about a 60° arc in which they can be fired to hit a target. If the target moves out of that arc on either side the missile miss.

The difference between them: SSRM's should travel roughly 3x the rate(making them MUCH harder to avoid), for about 1/2 damage of an SRM missile and require the lock to fire.

SRM's should be slower to travel the full distance, and be fire able without the lock.... but with a larger spread that we currently have.

As for LRM's... they're mostly useless without a lock, except against very large stationary targets, or targets in the 180 to about 400 range where they can travel fast enough you can actually land a few on a moving target. So essentially pointless given the spread they have in these conditions and that any mech with direct fire weapons still bends an LRM mech over.

[Koniving]

What you're describing reminds me of this (near 2 minutes in he begins firing).

Not bad, but difficult to learn and use in a game that Fails to teach its players.

Now keep in mind, LRMs in lore are locked with line of sight, and without line of sight, only through the use of a weight-worthy C3 computer system consuming weight on both the player and the spotter can the missileer actually use indirect locks. The indirect fire on tabletop is imprecise and highly degraded with because it is quite literally described in the books as hearing a location from a spotting infantry or field vehicle and firing on that location by setting it as a target on his GPS/map-style interface pulling the trigger.

So locks with LoS and then a more advanced system for non LoS.

Thus here is an alternative system that would make good use of the battlegrid and allow more precision.
Now as we know the Battlegrid looks like this. (Within the first 10 seconds of this vid.)


Enemies appear and disappear when spotted. A spotter can say "G8." And you can bombard it at random or when a triangle appears you can try to lead that triangle. Just like the books.

Battlefield 3 or WoT's artillery comes to mind for a visual demonstration of comparable systems.
BF3


Artillery


It could also be used for the "Mech Mortars" promised to us at one point.


Though... a simpler system that might actually happen is this.

Spoiler

Koniving, on 25 April 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

Here's a simple idea.

Double their damage. Double the wait to fire again.

Just an example: If it has a cooldown of 4, change it to 8. If it does 1.1 damage per missile, make it 2.2 damage per missile.

So instead of x number of missiles every 4 or so seconds, it's x number of missiles every 8 or so seconds.
Looking at current values, LRM-20 is 4.75 seconds, so 9.5 seconds. Instead of 22 damage in total, 44 damage.
LRM 15 is 4.25 seconds. So 8.5 seconds. Instead of 16.5 damage, 33 damage.
LRM 10 is 3.75 seconds. So 7.5 seconds. Instead of 11 damage, 22 damage.
LRM 5 is 3.25 seconds. So 6.5 seconds. Instead of 5.5 damage, 11 damage.

Remember that boating would still occur in pairs at minimum. Devastating, but not spam-worthy.

So no more spam fire like this.

or this

or this


Instead, we get very damaging salvos that are very slow to fire again.

• Fewer boats because boating lots of them might be devastating but leaves you completely defenseless.
  
• This is because there will be more time for players to go from cover to cover to reach the boats and kill them.
  
• Meanwhile players feel confident in the power of 1 to 2 launchers again with backup weapons and either stop boating or focus more on perfectly timed shots instead of relentless spam.
  
• Those who continue to boat will need to ask for escorts. This builds community and team play.

Everyone wins.

Edited by Koniving, 26 April 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Prezimonto, on 26 April 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'll note: Livewyr hates this mechanic before we go any further, and also ask if either you or Trauglodyte have any thoughts on the OP?

Regarding the OP's idea, I'm not a huge fan of guided missiles. I prefer either dumb or smart missiles. Guided missiles are too prone to abuse. Most missile systems have more damage per shot than other options, certainly for the tonnage, and letting people reliably place those missiles into specific spots would be rather stronger than I'd like to see.

I would not object to an indirect fire system using the tactical map, where you fire at a point on the map rather than a specific target mech. In that mode your missiles would spread out into a high-coverage pattern designed to saturate a location.

[Prezimonto]

Koniving, on 26 April 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

What you're describing reminds me of this (near 2 minutes in he begins firing).

Not bad, but difficult to learn and use in a game that Fails to teach its players.

Spoiler

I would say your first video is similar, except that it's fire-and-forget. It has the range finder though which is sort of the scroll wheel idea I talk about. So if you had to guide those artillery rockets into the target, while also dynamically adjusting the depth if your target is out of line of sight, then yes. I actually think what I'm talking about is significantly harder.

Now, as for your doubling the recycle and damage... I actually like the idea. It would push the missile systems into a spot where ghost heat is more likely to matter, instead of right now where it's essentially pointless.

[Trauglodyte]

I think that SRMs need some sort of guidance so I'm ok with it being applied to them. I think LRMs need a tweak on how the damage is spread and such simply because the LRM20 is a waste of a hard point due to just how awful it is. At the end of the day, I support anything to brings more skill to the game.