40 replies to this topic

[-Halcyon-]

I made the mistake of focusing my last thread on comparisons to TT.
This time, I'm going to focus on balancing to improve the quality of the game play and increase the one thing we all play this for...fun.
Some people need visuals to understand concepts so I made some pretty pictures.


Shared Targeting

How it Works Now

- LRMs may fire without LoS using regular shared targeting without TAG or NARC

- Missiles will track target without LoS, TAG, or NARC

- The spread of the missiles is narrow. Mostly all of them hit




How it Should Work

- If LRM mech has no LoS, and TAG/NARC aren't used, the mech cannot fire

- If TAG/NARC is used, LRM mech can fire on target with missile tracking





What Does This Do?

- Discourages LRM users from loitering near spawn waiting for the inevitable red target box to appear on their HUD which they can fire on

- Gives scouting mechs an actual role for forward observation and target support.
Light mechs especially would see a huge increase in viability being the smaller and more agile mechs suited for lasing/NARC duties

- Forces teams to rebalance their weaponry makeup.
Instead of 12 mechs having missiles because they know they can fire them any time a team mate locks a target, tonnage and slots are now used only if the LRM mech knows he will get TAG/NARC support....or he can just get LoS himself and fire on his own targets he can see

I was made aware that TT rules do allow the first diagram to be technically accurate if the goal is to make a video game carbon copy of TT.
Any time TT or board games are brought to the PC, a certain balance must be maintained to account for all the things you wouldn't normally have in a TT game, like real time combat instead of turn based.

AT THE VERY LEAST

If none of these suggestions are taken by the development team, the current spread of missiles fired indirectly without LoS target lock, TAG, or NARC should be drastically larger to account for the indirect fire method

-OR-

Missiles indirectly fired should have their tracking removed. Make them behave like a spotter giving coordinates to a MLRS.



The missiles hit the coordinates they were given, they don't track the target as it moves.
Without direct lock, TAG or NARC, LRMs fired indirectly should hit the spot where the target was when the missiles were fired.

If all of this was implemented?

I could see the maximum range of LRMs (1,000m) being extended to cover the whole map.

Let people do artillery support if they want. Without their own target locks or LoS, they rely on the support of the team through scouting with TAGs and NARCs.
This promotes team play and communication, which to my knowledge is what this game is supposed to be about.

Edited by Halcyon201, 01 November 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[Mercules]

Halcyon201, on 31 October 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

I was made aware that TT rules do allow the first diagram to be technically accurate if the goal is to make a video game carbon copy of TT.
Any time TT or board games are brought to the PC, a certain balance must be maintained to account for all the things you wouldn't normally have in a TT game, like real time combat instead of turn based.

The devs have stated that they want this game to be as true to the TT as they can manage. We all understand certain changes should be made to achieve balance.

That being said.....

LRMs are not overpowered so there is no reason to make them THAT MUCH WORSE. Right now they are fairly worthless unless you are in a PuG match and there are bad players on the opposite team. Making it so you basically NEVER have targets unless you decide to walk out into the open and stare at a mech that is probably dumping ERLL, PPCs, or Gauss into you is... dumb. Increase LRMs to 1k per second velocity and then we might talk but at the speed they travel firing from the open at a distance (you know, Long Range) is suicide.

Remove some of the screen shake and smoke bloom. Widen the spread for indirect fire some. Increase speed some. Viola, decent LRMs that will still never be used against good players, but at least they won't make bad players cry themselves to sleep at night.

[STEF_]

To what Mercules said, I add that it would be fine implementing a sort of malus to indirect fire, just to have MWO a little closer to TT.

But that said, LRM are effective only vs noobs here, and above all, in a short pertiod of time, we'll have a "ECM" inferno in the matches.

ECM.... ECM everywere..... not only for the hellbringer.

So, sadly, PGI would have to do something to make LRM working again, because it would be absolutely useless in pug too.

[-Halcyon-]

Mercules, on 31 October 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

LRMs are not overpowered so there is no reason to make them THAT MUCH WORSE.

I don't know why people automatically talk about LRMs being overpowered when I suggest shared targeting changes.
I never said LRMs were overpowered. I didn't bring up any of their damage or velocity data in my post.

The way that LRMs can target locked mechs is what's unbalanced. Being in an LRM40 boat or more at your base is zero risk and 100% reward when firing at every red box you see that pops up like whack-a-mole.
Players just sit back and rack up cbills from assists on targets they never actually saw themselves. That's cbill farming, not competitive game play.

I suggested changes that promote team play, give light mechs an actual scouting role that's useful and requires communication and teamwork, and discourages the 80+ combined LRM I see frequently in matches when players realize they actually have to work with TAGers or, god forbid...move up and get their own locks.

The only thing in regard to the LRMs themselves I suggested a change for was the spread of the indirect fire, which doesn't justify the almost non-existent effort it took the LRM mech to get and fire on that lock with tracking missiles, all with no line of sight.

Edited by Halcyon201, 01 November 2014 - 12:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Halcyon201, on 31 October 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

how many Meters apart are those Rockets from one another? Is that a fair Comparison to an LRM20?
A spread from this would be a better comparison.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 November 2014 - 05:57 AM.

[Dauntless Blint]

They're already nerfing them on the 4th so don't worry now they will be worthless

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Halcyon201, on 01 November 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

The only thing in regard to the LRMs themselves I suggested a change for was the spread of the indirect fire, which doesn't justify the almost non-existent effort it took the LRM mech to get and fire on that lock with tracking missiles, all with no line of sight.

But why shouldn't LRMs be able to do indirect fire? They're not at all OP now even when they can. If you remove indirect you will just make them into poor direct fire weapons and nobody will use them. All you will have achieved is to remove one of the few things that adds any depth to an otherwise shallow game. The interaction of LRMs/Artemis/ECM/TAG/BAP/NARC is one of MWO's good points. I really can't see any benefit in dumbing it down any further.

Stefka Kerensky, on 31 October 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:

ECM.... ECM everywere..... not only for the hellbringer.

Yep, once the Loki is released LRMs and SSRMs are going to be very much harder to use.

Edited by RocketDog, 01 November 2014 - 05:38 AM.

[STEF_]

RocketDog, on 01 November 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

But why shouldn't LRMs be able to do indirect fire? They're not at all OP now even when they can. If you remove indirect you will just make them into poor direct fire weapons and nobody will use them. All you will have achieved is to remove one of the few things that adds any depth to an otherwise shallow game. The interaction of LRMs/Artemis/ECM/TAG/BAP/NARC is one of MWO's good points. I really can't see any benefit in dumbing it down any further.



Yep, once the Loki is released LRMs and SSRMs are going to be very much harder to use.

and Mist Lynx.

Ecm will be a common feature, so I really think PGI should re-work the Jesus Box, otherwise LRM and ssrm will disappear.
And not giving BAP a "property" that it doesn't have in TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

Stefka Kerensky, on 01 November 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

and Mist Lynx.

Ecm will be a common feature, so I really think PGI should re-work the Jesus Box, otherwise LRM and ssrm will disappear.
And not giving BAP a "property" that it doesn't have in TT.

I guess PGI figured we gave ECM extra we need to take something from somewhere else?!

Ignore that. I misread it Stefka!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 01 November 2014 - 06:34 AM.

[Reitrix]

the problem is never with a single LRM carrying 'Mech.

the problem begins when someone, somewhere gets a red blip, locks on and suddenly 300+ missiles come flying at the target.

Target sharing is the problem.
Now if i was exposed to 5 LRM carrying 'mechs at the same time, well, thats gonna be a bad day regardless. But why can those same 5 LRM carrying 'mechs strike with impunity when a single person can see you?

[Joseph Mallan]

Reitrix, on 01 November 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

the problem is never with a single LRM carrying 'Mech.

the problem begins when someone, somewhere gets a red blip, locks on and suddenly 300+ missiles come flying at the target.

Target sharing is the problem.
Now if i was exposed to 5 LRM carrying 'mechs at the same time, well, thats gonna be a bad day regardless. But why can those same 5 LRM carrying 'mechs strike with impunity when a single person can see you?

Cause that's how spotting works? One set of coordinates are given from one Forward Observer and multiple batteries launch on it!

[Reitrix]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 November 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Cause that's how spotting works? One set of coordinates are given from one Forward Observer and multiple batteries launch on it!

Spotting for LRMs should require TAG.

[xe N on]

People who state that LRM are UP ignore one point. We don't talk about 1on1.

If I have 4-5 LRM boats in my team and my team is comptent enough to use UAV, NARC and TAG, LRMs can be devastating, because of the assist of e.g. 5xLRM40 = LRM 200.

Staying in cover? No problem, artillery strike will make you pay if you stay.

Using 4-5 assisting direct fire platforms is much more dificult, because direct fire need proper positioning and need to watch for friendly fire. Using LRMs require much less coordination.

It's not even the damage, it's simply the fact that you won't do anything if you got permanent screen shaked by a constant rain of LRMs..

Edited by xe N on, 01 November 2014 - 07:31 AM.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

Reitrix, on 01 November 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Spotting for LRMs should require TAG.

no not the way lrms work now.

if ecm didnt block locks and lrms moved at 500m/s+ then maybe.

but as of the current state of affairs lrms are a bad weapon and only good against noobs.

lrms need buffing not nerfing so just knock it off.

[Reitrix]

Mellifluer, on 01 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

no not the way lrms work now.

if ecm didnt block locks and lrms moved at 500m/s+ then maybe.

but as of the current state of affairs lrms are a bad weapon and only good against noobs.

lrms need buffing not nerfing so just knock it off.

Simple solutions.
Make ECM only double LRM lock time (increase the base lock time by 1~ second also)
Remove the ECM stealth. Basically make it like what happens when you drop a UAV above an ECM covered team, you can still LRM them, but the lock takes a while.

When thats done, TAG required on target to get an indirect lock.

If you're in view of 5 mechs with LRMs, they deserve the kill.
If you're in view of an ECM Raven at maximum Sensor range (All sensor boosts involved, i think its 1250 range) You aren't going to get any indirect locks.
But if that Raven snuck up and TAGged you, Expect LRMs in your face,

[Tim East]

+1 for the MLRS mention, but ehhh. LRMs only seem to kill me by direct fire or when I am in an assault, and only once in a blue moon anyway. I won't side with you on the grounds that they are OP, and I won't side with you on the grounds of "realism" because it's a science fiction game and in the case of unguided MLRS, you are generally hitting a very large area with DPICM bomblets. God, if arty strikes worked like that here, there would be such rage...

[LORD ORION]

Durr...

Suggestions will remove LRMs from the game

[Mcgral18]

RocketDog, on 01 November 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Yep, once the Loki is released LRMs and SSRMs are going to be very much harder to use.

BAP and AP are also getting increased to 360M; the cSSRM range. That will make it easier to cancel.

Although, that will upset my method to detect ECM lights; currently you just stop and use Seismic, but now you won't have a warning if you or your lance has an AP.

[IceSerpent]

Mercules, on 31 October 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

LRMs are not overpowered so there is no reason to make them THAT MUCH WORSE.

They are indeed not overpowered and don't need any nerfs, but the change Halcyon proposed would make it possible to make LRMs better (i.e. via increasing damage or tightening spread) without turning them into a god-like artillery. This in turn would make equipping a single LRM launcher a viable option. Essentially, LRMs would be much better off as yet another long range weapon with a "quirk" of being able to be fired indirectly when conditions are just right (TAG or NAC on target) instead of being primarily an arty with a "quirk" of direct fire capability.

[-Halcyon-]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 November 2014 - 03:42 AM, said:

how many Meters apart are those Rockets from one another? Is that a fair Comparison to an LRM20?.....A spread from this would be a better comparison.

It's just a random picture I chose to show the MLRS. Don't read too much into it.

RocketDog, on 01 November 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

But why shouldn't LRMs be able to do indirect fire? They're not at all OP now even when they can. If you remove indirect you will just make them into poor direct fire weapons

Again, I never said LRMs were OP or suggested removing indirect fire. I made my suggestion crystal clear and still people keep bringing up OP and things I never said.
I said change the mechanics of indirect fire, of which I gave two possible alternate methods if the main method at the top of the post wasn't used.

I never said remove indirect fire altogether.

Reitrix, on 01 November 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

the problem is never with a single LRM carrying 'Mech.

the problem begins when someone, somewhere gets a red blip, locks on and suddenly 300+ missiles come flying at the target.

Target sharing is the problem.
Now if i was exposed to 5 LRM carrying 'mechs at the same time, well, thats gonna be a bad day regardless. But why can those same 5 LRM carrying 'mechs strike with impunity when a single person can see you?

I'm glad one person understands.

Joseph Mallan, on 01 November 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Cause that's how spotting works? One set of coordinates are given from one Forward Observer and multiple batteries launch on it!

Right. A set of coordinates. And then all 80+ missiles magically track the target even if it moved?
That's unbalanced game play. Now if the spotter was using TAG, that information would constantly update to the firing mechs, and the missiles would hit the target.

No different from a GBU-12 laser guided 500 lb bomb used frequently by A-10C and F/A-18E/F aircraft.
Still requires a spotter with a target laser.

Mellifluer, on 01 November 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

no not the way lrms work now.

if ecm didnt block locks and lrms moved at 500m/s+ then maybe.

but as of the current state of affairs lrms are a bad weapon and only good against noobs.

lrms need buffing not nerfing so just knock it off.

Oh boy. I never said "nerf LRMs". In fact, I said if indirect spotting mechanics were changed to increase LRM range to cover entire maps. That's a buff, not a nerf.

LORD ORION, on 01 November 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

Durr...

Suggestions will remove LRMs from the game

Hardly. Suggestions would improve teamwork and game play, and I gave several examples of how that would happen.
If you'r'e going to make a blanket statement, at least provide some explanation.