296 replies to this topic

[Penance]

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

Even an equal amount of ECM on teams still screws LRM users.


While i'd like more chance of ammo explosions i think it's a bad idea considering the amount of ammo we have to cram into mechs due to PGI ignoring the increased match time (from TT to MWO) and not increasing ammo/ton.

Yeah but teams are then at least somewhat better balanced. Also don't just load out only LRM's, carrying only one type of weapon is foolish even if you can only sport missiles smart to take at least one srm rack.

[Wolfways]

Penance, on 28 July 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Yeah but teams are then at least somewhat better balanced. Also don't just load out only LRM's, carrying only one type of weapon is foolish even if you can only sport missiles smart to take at least one srm rack.

My C1 has 4xML's for defense, but i'm still going to fairly useless to my team
My point is that i shouldn't have to carry other weapons just because my main weapons could be made dead weight by the enemy.

[Zypher]

ECM is an advantage that cannot be dismissed in any situation, I think that is where most of the problem is. A team without it isn't doing itself any favors. In 12 vs 12 competitive, assuming 2 teams are equal in skill, tonnage, map placement etc, but one team has ECM and the other does not, I would bet on the ECM team every time. There a very few single components in the game that have as much potential as a single ECM. In competitive play it's still a crutch, you won't find serious teams running without it often if ever.

Edited by Zypher, 28 July 2014 - 07:05 AM.

[mogs01gt]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Because that particular weapon set has a reduced skill cap for it to work, and is a fire and forget weapon. One that can be fired without any hope of retaliation or return fire. Ballistics weapons' "dominance" is counteracted by their weight, ammo dependency (can't use the same argument on LRMs since you can pack so much of them), and their absolute reliance on manual aim. Not to mention that missing a shot doesn't let you deal partial damage like with lasers, but rather you lose all the damage from that shot, and heat.

IMO you are highly inaccurate. They arent fire and forget, you must maintain locks, pray they dont have new module, pray someone retains LOS, tag or NARC, pray they dont go into cover and pray they arent surrounded by AMS. For the tonnage of LRMs + ammo, they are vastly insufficient at applying damage compared to ballistics and lasers.

Also this idea that they are a "reduced skill cap" weapon is asinine since mechs that are designed to carry ballistics and lasers are vastly superior do to them having pin-point damage and convergence. Mech design imbalance goes hand and hand with weapon imbalance. Specifically this issue shows its head when comparing the Shawks to Griffs. Since Griffs are missle based mechs, they are inferior to Shawks even though Griffins are more agile and have a better cockpits.

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

While i'd like more chance of ammo explosions i think it's a bad idea considering the amount of ammo we have to cram into mechs due to PGI ignoring the increased match time (from TT to MWO) and not increasing ammo/ton.

I do not see that as an issue. That simply means that energy based mechs could be more viable.

Edited by mogs01gt, 28 July 2014 - 07:11 AM.

[Prezimonto]

I've said for a very long time that LRM's need to change, so ECM can change and not have LRM's completely destroy newbs.

There's lots of suggestions:
1) make them cross hair guided rather than lock on
2) make them bone target
3) require tag/narc for indirect fire

All of these things amount to a direct nerf to LRM's, and issues like 3 also increase the "individual skill" that seems so treasured but folks who enjoy the ballistic weapons that aren't nerfed to uselessness by ECM.

At least, mechs should be able to aquired locks on target they hold the cross hair over. Even if ECM makes the magic dorito stop appearing, you should be able to hold a cross hair on a single mech for an additional 2 seconds and the dorito popups up and you start getting a lock (slowly) and target information (slowly and perhaps incomplete).

If you can EYEBALL the mech advanced electronics should be able to detect motion and profile. Heck, give us C3 and command consoles so we can see the edges of ECM fields (should be very apparent) and share hard won target profiles.

[Livewyr]

Penance, on 28 July 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

The issue is the MM, not the mechs. Too many times am I in games where my team either has an abundance of ECM mechs, or none. Sure the wait is long enough but the MM needs to make sure each team has at least 1 mech with ECM, if it can't then both get none

What does that say about the item in question, compared to either items, that it has to be balanced by the Matchmaker?

---------------------------------

To illustrate my point:
If Matchmaker balancing was considered viable and removes the overpowered or game breaking status of the weapon, since it is at least weighted against itself on the other team, would it then be okay to buff Gauss Rifles substantially (30 damage, 3000m range, 2500 speed) but coded the MM to split them evenly on both teams?

-----------------------------------

All other items are balanced against themselves.
(Beam duration for lasers being light weight and instant)
(Heavy weight and bulky size for ballistics being low heat and sometimes FLD)
(Slow travel time, warning target, lock required for LRMs having tracking ability and relatively long range.)
(Hardcapped 270m range for SRMs, along with a spread of damage, for their weight and damage)

BAP does not do all that much for its 1.5 tons.. It gives a significant sensor range boost, more importantly it gives a lock-time and target information boost. That is worth 1.5 tons to a missile boat or maybe a scout.
Most importantly, it counters ECM within 150m [sic].

Bringing a BAP on your mech is something you weigh the cost and benefit of 1.5 tons.

If your mech can load ECM, and you did not bring it, you:
A: Do not know what it does.
B: Do not know what it does.
C: Want to get jeered at.

It is just *that* good, it is never a question.

[Wolfways]

mogs01gt, on 28 July 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

I do not see that as an issue. That simply means that energy based mechs could be more viable.

And missile-based mechs even less viable.

[Malleus011]

ECM is the greatest slayer of fun in the game.

Fix it.

[Prezimonto]

Livewyr, on 28 July 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

What does that say about the item in question, compared to either items, that it has to be balanced by the Matchmaker?

---------------------------------

To illustrate my point:
If Matchmaker balancing was considered viable and removes the overpowered or game breaking status of the weapon, since it is at least weighted against itself on the other team, would it then be okay to buff Gauss Rifles substantially (30 damage, 3000m range, 2500 speed) but coded the MM to split them evenly on both teams?

-----------------------------------

All other items are balanced against themselves.
(Beam duration for lasers being light weight and instant)
(Heavy weight and bulky size for ballistics being low heat and sometimes FLD)
(Slow travel time, warning target, lock required for LRMs having tracking ability and relatively long range.)
(Hardcapped 270m range for SRMs, along with a spread of damage, for their weight and damage)

BAP does not do all that much for its 1.5 tons.. It gives a significant sensor range boost, more importantly it gives a lock-time and target information boost. That is worth 1.5 tons to a missile boat or maybe a scout.
Most importantly, it counters ECM within 150m [sic].

Bringing a BAP on your mech is something you weigh the cost and benefit of 1.5 tons.

If your mech can load ECM, and you did not bring it, you:
A: Do not know what it does.
B: Do not know what it does.
C: Want to get jeered at.

It is just *that* good, it is never a question.

To be fair, Roland proposed a MM based on battle value determined by market usage and utility I bet ECM mechs would hyper inflate BV pretty quickly, and the MM would properly score them as worth about 2 to 3 times their non-ECM brethren.

[Livewyr]

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

To be fair, Roland proposed a MM based on battle value determined by market usage and utility I bet ECM mechs would hyper inflate BV pretty quickly, and the MM would properly score them as worth about 2 to 3 times their non-ECM brethren.

Which, because, even with the Battlevalue, matches would still have to be balanced 12v12.. would essentially boil back down to ECM matching.. (Cannot have 12v14 because 1 player has a mech worth 3)

[IraqiWalker]

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 06:33 AM, said:

Much of the chance of being hit by a slow moving projectile is up to the target. LRM's are the slowest moving projectile in the game, and you even get a warning that they've been fired at you! There is no reason to take a lot of damage from LRM's other than you screwed up and were far away from cover or you were simply outmaneuvered by the enemy team and they managed to just about surround you (which also means your team are probably already dead).

LRM's are also not fire-and-forget. You need to keep the lock for the whole travel time. Imo they should be fire-and-forget.

You can't use weight and ammo count as an argument for ballistics but not LRM's, as LRM's are also heavy and you can pack enough AC ammo to last an entire match (10tons for a Jager with 4xAC's).

Manual aim? Point>click. It's not hard, and at least you get to choose which component on the enemy mech to shoot at, unlike LRM's.

My most used mechs with regards to ease of use (all stock weapons):

JM6-S - Ridiculously easy. Great short-mid range brawler. 4-6+ kills, 800-1000+ damage not unusual, average probably around 3+ kills, 600+ damage.
CPLT-K2 - Usually low-average damage due to the heat stopping the PPC's from firing. 1-2 kills, 300+ damage in a decent match.
CPLT-C1 - Depending on the enemy team (tactical piloting skills and use of ECM) matches vary from bad (0 kills, 100+ damage) to good (4 kills, 600+ damage, but average is probably around 2 kills, 400 damage which i have to really work hard to get.

All of the arguments you can pile for why LRMs aren't an uber weapon are arguments that I myself use, and they are there to counteract the fact that you can actually deal damage without any risk of being hit back.

Also, to be honest, that's the one feature with ECM that can't actually be argued against. ECM disables the guidance for missiles, causing LRMs to become just longer ranged SRMs. Which is what we get by dumb firing them right now.

As for the weight & tonnage argument for LRMs and ballistics. You can't win that one. An AC10 weighs 12 tons and occupies 7 slots, the largest LRM launcher in the game (the one that deals the most damage too at 22) weight 10 tons and occupies 5 slots (this is without factoring Artemis). The AC also has far less ammo per ton, however, it gets the benefit of choosing exactly where to put it's damage. Thus you get PP FLD, with less ammo, far less heat, more weight and slots, and at the risk of exposing yourself. Evening out against spread damage, less tonnage, more heat, fewer slots, more ammo, and without the need to risk exposing yourself.

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

My C1 has 4xML's for defense, but i'm still going to fairly useless to my team
My point is that i shouldn't have to carry other weapons just because my main weapons could be made dead weight by the enemy.

That's why you should have your team's light mechs, the scouts, spotters, and information warriors do their job, and make your main weapon not useless.

mogs01gt, on 28 July 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Also this idea that they are a "reduced skill cap" weapon is asinine since mechs that are designed to carry ballistics and lasers are vastly superior do to them having pin-point damage and convergence. Mech design imbalance goes hand and hand with weapon imbalance. Specifically this issue shows its head when comparing the Shawks to Griffs. Since Griffs are missle based mechs, they are inferior to Shawks even though Griffins are more agile and have a better cockpits.

They are a reduced skill cap weapon, in that you don't need much skill to achieve basic operating levels with them. You need good skill to really make them shine, but it's infinitely easier to fire LRMs and deal damage, than it is with any other weapon system int he game. You not seeing it, is a flaw with your analysis.

As for ballistics being superior to them: Ballistics being better doesn't mean LRMs aren't easier to use, just means ballistics are more efficient since you can select exactly where to plop your damage. Provided you have the high skill needed to pinpoint specific locations consistently.

That still doesn't mean LRMs aren't easy to use. (they are actually the quintessential easy-to-use-difficult-to-master weapon of the game)

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

1) make them cross hair guided rather than lock on

Wanna see me curve an LRM 50 around a corner right into you, consistently? We can almost do that already. Let me give them cross hair guidance and you might want to pack up, as no other weapon in the game will be used as much as LRMs.

Also, again, ECM is actually fine as is. The bubble could use some reduction maybe, but for now, and until they implement stealth armor, it's fine.


EDIT: perhaps a mechanical separation between targeting and locks can be made, and that might satisfy most of the complaints I'm seeing here.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 28 July 2014 - 08:10 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Livewyr, on 28 July 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

Which, because, even with the Battlevalue, matches would still have to be balanced 12v12.. would essentially boil back down to ECM matching.. (Cannot have 12v14 because 1 player has a mech worth 3)

Maybe not: High meta mechs like DS and anything else will also inflate. The thing is they self regulate if it's usage based. ECM mechs become too expensive based on use eventually and people stop using them so much. If that means there's a single ECM on each team... well it's not any worse than we have now.

[Wolfways]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

All of the arguments you can pile for why LRMs aren't an uber weapon are arguments that I myself use, and they are there to counteract the fact that you can actually deal damage without any risk of being hit back.

Also, to be honest, that's the one feature with ECM that can't actually be argued against. ECM disables the guidance for missiles, causing LRMs to become just longer ranged SRMs. Which is what we get by dumb firing them right now.

So your argument for LRM's being crap is that they should only be used indirect?
And if SRM speed was 160ms a lot less people would use them. Slow projectile speed is okay for short range, but bad for long range (hence the lock on mechanism).

Quote

As for the weight & tonnage argument for LRMs and ballistics. You can't win that one. An AC10 weighs 12 tons and occupies 7 slots, the largest LRM launcher in the game (the one that deals the most damage too at 22) weight 10 tons and occupies 5 slots (this is without factoring Artemis). The AC also has far less ammo per ton, however, it gets the benefit of choosing exactly where to put it's damage. Thus you get PP FLD, with less ammo, far less heat, more weight and slots, and at the risk of exposing yourself. Evening out against spread damage, less tonnage, more heat, fewer slots, more ammo, and without the need to risk exposing yourself.

Wow, you're comparing the worst weapon in the game with the best...and you think they're balanced?

[Prezimonto]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

Wanna see me curve an LRM 50 around a corner right into you, consistently? We can almost do that already. Let me give them cross hair guidance and you might want to pack up, as no other weapon in the game will be used as much as LRMs.

Also, again, ECM is actually fine as is. The bubble could use some reduction maybe, but for now, and until they implement stealth armor, it's fine.

EDIT: perhaps a mechanical separation between targeting and locks can be made, and that might satisfy most of the complaints I'm seeing here.

By cross hair guidance, I'm not talking wire guided. I'm suggesting a pure LoS mechanic, which when combine with a speed increase and a serious turn radius decrease. It would make missiles very hard to shimmy around corners, but would make them semi-aimable. At one point I suggested that the mouse wheel should allow you to change the depth of drop off the cross hair... so they go up and come down at your cross hair, ±the mouse wheel movement.

I wouldn't be too upset if streaks wire-guided though. Trade auto-hits for around corner tricks is fair IMO.

[Wolfways]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

They are a reduced skill cap weapon, in that you don't need much skill to achieve basic operating levels with them. You need good skill to really make them shine, but it's infinitely easier to fire LRMs and deal damage, than it is with any other weapon system int he game. You not seeing it, is a flaw with your analysis.

Pointing the mouse at something and pressing a button is hard?
If using LRM's is easy and using AC's is hard then i'm either the worst LRM user ever or i'm an AC god

Direct-fire weapons couldn't get any easier. There isn't really any bullet drop or leading in MWO!

[mogs01gt]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

They are a reduced skill cap weapon, in that you don't need much skill to achieve basic operating levels with them. You need good skill to really make them shine, but it's infinitely easier to fire LRMs and deal damage, than it is with any other weapon system int he game. You not seeing it, is a flaw with your analysis.
As for ballistics being superior to them: Ballistics being better doesn't mean LRMs aren't easier to use, just means ballistics are more efficient since you can select exactly where to plop your damage. Provided you have the high skill needed to pinpoint specific locations consistently.

How is it easier to deal damage with a weapon that has 10x the number of counters than Pin-point damage weapons? Missile mechs themselves are inferior to ballistics and energy base mechs. That alone makes them more difficult to pilot. Pin-point damage only needs LOS and aiming ability to cause damage due to the convergence system in the game.

You whole argument is based on LRMs requiring a lock without LOS when everyone else knows that is the most insufficient use of the weapon. Which is why LRMs will always be inferior to ballistics and lasers since they do require a lock.

[IraqiWalker]

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

Maybe not: High meta mechs like DS and anything else will also inflate. The thing is they self regulate if it's usage based. ECM mechs become too expensive based on use eventually and people stop using them so much. If that means there's a single ECM on each team... well it's not any worse than we have now.

The main flaw with BV balancing is that in TT you didn't need teams of equal units. I could run one behemoth tank, vs. a battalion of jump infantry, and it would technically be equal in BV, but you can't do that when each team is mandated to be 12 units.

For BV matching to really work, we would need to remove all mechs but one. Then keep all other mechs that have it's exact BV rating.

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

So your argument for LRM's being crap is that they should only be used indirect?
And if SRM speed was 160ms a lot less people would use them. Slow projectile speed is okay for short range, but bad for long range (hence the lock on mechanism).

What does SRM speed have to do with this? Or are we venturing into strawman territory here?

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Wow, you're comparing the worst weapon in the game with the best...and you think they're balanced?

They're balanced against each other. Yes, because it depends on the role you want to serve in the team. Ballistics are the king of the game right now, because there is one tactic that outright dominates above all others and it uses them instead of missiles. Their mechanics exacerbate it, however. Over all, the trade off is between safety and being a force multiplier that can support multiple friendlies quickly, and being able to kill a single target easier.

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

I wouldn't be too upset if streaks wire-guided though. Trade auto-hits for around corner tricks is fair IMO.

That's not how streaks operate. They are missiles that by design couldn't be fired unless the targeting computer had a 100% probability of them hitting the target.

Wolfways, on 28 July 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

Pointing the mouse at something and pressing a button is hard?
If using LRM's is easy and using AC's is hard then i'm either the worst LRM user ever or i'm an AC god

Direct-fire weapons couldn't get any easier. There isn't really any bullet drop or leading in MWO!

Pointing and clicking is easy. Actually hitting is harder. Leading targets is not an easy thing to learn, and if you say there is no leading, either you have been using lasers, or MGs. Once you're past 300 meters you really need to lead for your shot to hit the specific component you are aiming for.

As for bullet drop. Get into any mech right now, go into training grounds and tell me there's no bullet drop. Depending on the AC firing the ranges differ. AC 20s start to drop around 300-400 meters. While AC 10s for example start dropping around 600 meters I think.

mogs01gt, on 28 July 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

How is it easier to deal damage with a weapon that has 10x the number of counters than Pin-point damage weapons? Missile mechs themselves are inferior to ballistics and energy base mechs. That alone makes them more difficult to pilot. Pin-point damage only needs LOS and aiming ability to cause damage due to the convergence system in the game.

You whole argument is based on LRMs requiring a lock without LOS when everyone else knows that is the most insufficient use of the weapon. Which is why LRMs will always be inferior to ballistics and lasers since they do require a lock.

Because you don't need to aim. Your target is a box bigger than the mech you are aiming for. Your argument is based on dropping solo with no coordination, when dropping in a group as small as 2 people my LRM boat starts annihilating people very quickly. While being used in an indirect fire support role. The system has many counters because it has many advantages. Acquiring a lock is easy, holding it gets tricky, unless you have a spotter, and then it's easy as well. The level of suppression it can apply far surpasses that of any other weapon, simply due to psychological pressure.

Maybe using it indirectly is inefficient (it isn't, unless you're beyond 600 meters, and have no real spotters), but that still doesn't negate the benefits you get from firing with impunity, and without being fired back upon. A ballistic mech still has to expose itself, and will lose armor in order to deal damage.

Basically, the counter to PP FLD, is EVERY WEAPON IN THE GAME. The mech reveals itself, and it gets fired back upon. While with LRMs your spotters are giving you the data to hit targets that can't fire back at you. Not to mention that if someone puts a UAV up, it's open season on the enemy team.

1 UAV, 3 LRM boats, and we chewed out the enemy team. Turned a 4-2 match into a 6-12 match.

There are many counters to LRMs, and sometimes it feels like they border on over-kill, I know, I run an LRM boat every now and then. However, in all honesty, LRMs are in a good place right now (I still want the double damage for double cycle tweak to be implemented), and they serve their purpose well.

They were never meant to be an annihilating weapon. They are a support weapon. Using them as a main weapon is fine with a few specific chassis, and in specific roles, all those roles are support roles, not front line killer roles.

[Prezimonto]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

The main flaw with BV balancing is that in TT you didn't need teams of equal units. I could run one behemoth tank, vs. a battalion of jump infantry, and it would technically be equal in BV, but you can't do that when each team is mandated to be 12 units.

For BV matching to really work, we would need to remove all mechs but one. Then keep all other mechs that have it's exact BV rating.

I'd be okay with the MM deciding to match 11v12 with BV. I suspect a leeway of a mech or two wouldn't make NEARLY the difference it does right now, as for every wildly over BV mech there's going to be wildly under BV mechs as well. You could provide an earnings bonus to mechs that are under BV average, and people would take them to grind.

[IraqiWalker]

Prezimonto, on 28 July 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

I'd be okay with the MM deciding to match 11v12 with BV. I suspect a leeway of a mech or two wouldn't make NEARLY the difference it does right now, as for every wildly over BV mech there's going to be wildly under BV mechs as well. You could provide an earnings bonus to mechs that are under BV average, and people would take them to grind.

That could actually be fun. I would love to see something like that implemented for CW. Where instead of tonnage matching, it's BV matching for the Attacking and defending forces.

[Wolfways]

IraqiWalker, on 28 July 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

What does SRM speed have to do with this? Or are we venturing into strawman territory here?

You said dumb-fired LRM's are basically longer ranged SRM's. Which i guess is true other than the firing arc and ridiculously slow speed...

Quote

They're balanced against each other. Yes, because it depends on the role you want to serve in the team. Ballistics are the king of the game right now, because there is one tactic that outright dominates above all others and it uses them instead of missiles. Their mechanics exacerbate it, however. Over all, the trade off is between safety and being a force multiplier that can support multiple friendlies quickly, and being able to kill a single target easier.

So they're balanced but AC's are better at destroying mechs...which is the point of weapons.
If you mean poptarting i can tell you now that an AC mech without JJ's will still destroy mechs a whole lot faster than LRM's will.

Quote

Pointing and clicking is easy. Actually hitting is harder. Leading targets is not an easy thing to learn, and if you say there is no leading, either you have been using lasers, or MGs. Once you're past 300 meters you really need to lead for your shot to hit the specific component you are aiming for.

As for bullet drop. Get into any mech right now, go into training grounds and tell me there's no bullet drop. Depending on the AC firing the ranges differ. AC 20s start to drop around 300-400 meters. While AC 10s for example start dropping around 600 meters I think.

I said there isn't really any bullet drop, not there is none. i.e. it's not something that is difficult like say...sniping in the Battlefield games...and i've used every weapon (except maybe the flamer...not sure).
Bullet drop and leading are almost nonexistent in MWO...unless you're firing at a full speed light mech at around 1500m maybe.