138 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Check your damage/hit with SRM4 vs SRM6. Check your damage per shot too. Easy way to tell which is superior.

I'm 100% on board though with the whole 'larger launcher is inferior to boated smaller launchers' bit. Just have it be a perfectly even scale; Also just match the damn tubes to the launcher so that an IS mech with 80 tubes launches 80 missiles. Then wrap ghost heat down to LRM5s.

This wipes out the chain-fire LRM ultra-shake and makes choice of LRM launcher one of gauging space/size/hardpoints and not min/maxing.

[Alek Ituin]

Glythe, on 08 November 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

One feed system could supply 20 missiles in one place or into 4 different places. Having 1 loading system for ammo is more efficient than wasting space and having multiple. But it doesn't matter because the game doesn't care..... in this game and WoT the only thing that matters is the outer hull and not the internal workings.

Somewhere you decided just to be a jerk. Well I'm not going to waste everyone's time talking to you. If you want to have an argument, send me a private message. Don't worry I will totally delete it before reading it (wait did I say that backwards).

But by all means please stay if you can contribute to the LRM/SRM conversation..... otherwise please leave.

So I deleted everything that didn't matter from your block quote. Mechs =/= T-54's because you don't need to stuff people in the same space as everything else, and you have significantly more room for everything. You even have a special place for the people to sit in! Errr... wait... We already have those. Ammo feeds are ammo feeds, regardless of the number of weapons they're feeding. As for your hilarious little bit about howitzers, the SPG's that can fire 5 rounds in a burst also take up so much space that you really can't fit people in to the cabin. A manually reloaded quad-gun configuration would take up significantly less space than that as it so happens.

And I've decided it can work because that's how it would work. You have a missile feed that can supply 20+ missiles at once, feeding in to 4x LRM-5's. It's loading 20 missiles from the magazines, splitting it in to 4 groups of 5, and then feeding it to what one can assume is the launcher's own loading system (otherwise the weight makes no sense). It would work the same way if it was 2x LRM-10's, 1x LRM-15 and 1x LRM-5, or 1x LRM-20.

Moving on to aircraft, that's because jets are fairly easy to break with cannons. You don't need 6 cannons to rip apart an enemy aircraft, but it can't hurt to have 6 cannons either. Everybody and their brother focusing on missiles and guided munitions doesn't help either. The entire point here being that no, more guns never hurts and does not necessarily require more space. Which was the entire basis of your first false assumption.

As for the guidance issue, more missiles to guide will naturally lead to less precision. You can't have your cake and eat it too, that's not how it works. Do LRM-20's need to be more precise? Yes. Should they be more precise than 4x LRM-5's? Not quite, but fairly close.


Oh yeah, and quite frankly, everything I said at the end of my last post was true. As even you can easily tell, I don't like you and will not be affording you the basic level of civility most others would get. I also feel that you're an imbecile that complains about everything under the sun. Everything.

[MischiefSC]

not going to get into the pissing contest here but it's worth mentioning -

Bad mechanics are still bad. It's not about complaining, it's about identifying **** mechanics and offering an alternative.

LRMs could stand to be standardized. The fact that LRMs are balanced around boating a bunch of small launchers is exactly what makes 1 or 2 missile hardpoints on mechs largely worthless. Ask the Battlemaster.

Standardize LRMs so that an LRM20 is 4x as good as a LRM5. You'll see LRMs used in more balanced loadouts as a result.

[Brody319]

Brody319, on 07 November 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

LRM 5's are 2 tons.
LRM 10's are 5 tons
LRM 15's are 7 tons.
LRM 20's are 10 tons.

So 2 LRM 5s weight 1 ton less than 10s, 1 ton less than 15s, and 2 tons less than 20s for the same number of missiles.

so they have the weight advantage.


Now for slots:
5s are 1 slots
10s are 2 slots
15s are 3 slots
20s are 5 slots.

So 5s have the advantage in both weight and number of slots.


Now heat:
5s = 2
10s = 4
15s = 5
20s = 6

So here the LRM 5s actually are worse. For the same number of missiles as an LRM 20 they generate 8 heat.
So using larger launchers has a heat advantage.


So the LRM 5s are better in slots, weight, clustering.
And are only worse when it comes to heat.
Damage isnt important, as all missiles deal 1 damage so they are all liner in comparison.

So yea some imbalance here.

Alright quoting so everyone can see the numbers.

If we want LRM 5s to be more balanced we need to redo some stats.
Decrease the tonnage of LRM 10s and 15s by 1, and LRM 20s by 2 tons.
representative tonnages that increase properly.

Decrease the LRM 20s slots to 4.

As for heat, really chain firing LRM 5s pretty much take the cake because no ghost heat. So that needs to be tweaked, (doesn't make sense for missile tubes to heat up as much as they do, but science fiction what ever)

now for the clustering issue, perhaps all missiles should have a large clustering effect unless they have tag or narc. So launching LRM 5s would result in clusters hitting all the different parts of the mech unless you had tag or narc on the target. Would nerf the LRMs without making them useless.

LRM 5s launching 5 missiles, 1 missile will go for different parts of the mech. That doesn't mean they will hit the areas they aim for, but it will decrease the instant coring LRM 5 swarm that happens all over the damn place. however having tag or narc would bring the clusters close to what they are now.


As for LRM 15s and 20s, I think they should just be changed to fire groups of 5 missiles. then follow the same system as the 5s. This would mean that mechs with 1 hard point, could bring the equivalent of 4 LRM 5s, without having to use the same number of hard points, but still using the same number of slots, heat, and tonnage as carrying 2 lrm 5s.

[The Boz]

The main thing that ***** up the math here is Artemis. You can either have LRMs internally balanced with Artemis, or without Artemis, but not both so long as Artemis is an integral part of the launcher, and not a stand-alone module. Which it totally should be, TT rules from 30 years ago be damned. This game made several big steps away from TT, it shouldn't be afraid to make a few more.

[Alek Ituin]

MischiefSC, on 08 November 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

not going to get into the pissing contest here but it's worth mentioning -

Bad mechanics are still bad. It's not about complaining, it's about identifying **** mechanics and offering an alternative.

LRMs could stand to be standardized. The fact that LRMs are balanced around boating a bunch of small launchers is exactly what makes 1 or 2 missile hardpoints on mechs largely worthless. Ask the Battlemaster.

Standardize LRMs so that an LRM20 is 4x as good as a LRM5. You'll see LRMs used in more balanced loadouts as a result.

The problem with your idea here is that straight upgrades are not a good way to balance things either. All equipment should be viable, and larger pieces of equipment should be sidegrades, not just X% better. All launcher weights and sizes need to balanced so that 4x LRM-5's is the same as 1x LRM-20 in terms of weight and space. Same goes for every other launcher size. For instance, balancing from the LRM-5 up: LRM-5 (2 tons, 1 crit), LRM-10 (4 tons, 2 crits), LRM-15 (6 tons, 3 crits), LRM-20 (8 tons, 4 crits).

It makes all launchers smaller and lighter, but standardizes the weight so that no combination of smaller launchers weighs less than a single launcher of equivalent tubes. Accuracy could scale as well, but how that would function isn't something I've put a lot of though in to. Perhaps by number of tubes fired at once?

[The Boz]

I'm actually for the idea of smaller = faster & hotter, but with identical stats otherwise.

[Glythe]

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

The problem with your idea here is that straight upgrades are not a good way to balance things either. All equipment should be viable, and larger pieces of equipment should be sidegrades, not just X% better. All launcher weights and sizes need to balanced so that 4x LRM-5's is the same as 1x LRM-20 in terms of weight and space.

Larger equipment that weighs more or uses more slots needs to do more damage. Equipment has to scale with weight heat and space or there is no reason to take it (like the large pulse laser for a very very long time).

[Alek Ituin]

Glythe, on 08 November 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

Larger equipment that weighs more or uses more slots needs to do more damage. Equipment has to scale with weight heat and space or there is no reason to take it (like the large pulse laser for a very very long time).

Are you friggin serious? An LRM-10 fires 5 more missiles than an LRM-5, that's 5 more damage. An LRM-20 fires 15 more missiles than an LRM-5, that's 15 more damage.

See how that works? You load up a larger launcher, you fire more missiles, and do more damage! NOVEL IDEA, ISN'T IT?!


Larger launchers fire more missiles and do more damage by design!

[MischiefSC]

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

The problem with your idea here is that straight upgrades are not a good way to balance things either. All equipment should be viable, and larger pieces of equipment should be sidegrades, not just X% better. All launcher weights and sizes need to balanced so that 4x LRM-5's is the same as 1x LRM-20 in terms of weight and space. Same goes for every other launcher size. For instance, balancing from the LRM-5 up: LRM-5 (2 tons, 1 crit), LRM-10 (4 tons, 2 crits), LRM-15 (6 tons, 3 crits), LRM-20 (8 tons, 4 crits).

It makes all launchers smaller and lighter, but standardizes the weight so that no combination of smaller launchers weighs less than a single launcher of equivalent tubes. Accuracy could scale as well, but how that would function isn't something I've put a lot of though in to. Perhaps by number of tubes fired at once?

Smaller launchers are better - if you need to bring less tonnage or have less crit spaces. That's the whole point of different launchers.

The problem is that they made smaller missile launchers inherently superior to larger ones, giving little reason to bring larger ones. Yes, you shoot more missiles at once with an LRM 20 than with an LRM 5 - but 4 LRM 5s will fire faster and with greater accuracy than 1 LRM 20 and for generally less weight and fewer crit spaces, only paying the price of 2 more heat. That's not a real tradeoff and it makes taking 1 LRM20 sort of a suckers choice.

Ergo you have mechs like the Battlemaster with 1 missile hardpoint that is never used. Why? No point. Even if you pack 1 LRM20 in it you're doing the equivalent of taking a single AC2 - wasting tonnage and space.

So the only real use for LRMs is boated small launchers or at least boated medium sized launchers. 6 LRM5s is a DPS of 9.24, 12 tons and 6 slots. It fires 25% faster than LRM20s to do that; giving a higher rate of fire (and thus more reliably put that damage on targets). 2 LRM20s is 25% more tubes but is only 8.42 DPS, 20 tons and 10 slots. Let's break that out more visibly:

6xLRM5 - 30 tubes.
12 tons
6 crits
9.24 DPS
3.25 cooldown
12 heat

2xLRM20 - 40 tubes
20 tons
10 crits
8.42 DPS
4.75 cooldown
12 heat

The first is clearly superior to the second. It's 8 less tons, 4 less crit spaces, more DPS. They have the exact same heat.

The first can be chain-fired to stun-lock mechs, the second can not. The first has a significantly lower cooldown, letting it possibly get a second salvo off before a target is into cover than the second.

Suppose you add Artemis in there, that's going to give the first still 2 less tons and then they're balanced for spaces. Still higher DPS and same heat only now the first is going to drill down on the CT while the second scatters damage still over the whole mech.

This is a bad mechanic. It is designed to reward boating and punish fewer, bigger launchers when in fact the opposite should happen. It means that there's no good reason to put a small number of big launchers on your assault or heavy LRM boat; you're likely going to just do better with a huge engine, a ton of DHS and a stupid amount of ammo and still boat LRM5s/10s.

You carry smaller launchers because you want more ammo or a bigger engine or you're putting LRMs on a smaller mech. You've still got plenty of reasons to carry smaller launchers; what we lack is a good reason to carry larger launchers.

[Alek Ituin]

MischiefSC, on 08 November 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

-snip-

Congrats, you read absolutely NOTHING of the post you quoted.

I said to standardize launcher size and weight, so that no combination of launchers is inherently superior. More tubes fired = less accuracy as well, so 4x LRM-5's is just as inaccurate as a single LRM-20. I'd also argue that you should just standardize RoF as well, so the only determining factor is how much free tonnage/space you have.

Your example would look like this with my idea:

8x LRM-5 (40 tubes):
16 tons
8 crits
4.00 CD
X Heat (I don't know yet)

2x LRM-20 (40 tubes):
16 tons
8 crits
4.00 CD
X Heat (I don't know yet)

If you can manage to find a Mech with 8 Missile hardpoints though, bravo to you. Either way, 30 tubes v 40 tubes will always result in the higher number of tubes weighing more. So I evened up the tube count for a more equal comparison... They're exactly the same in tonnage and space, with the exact same CD and X amount of heat. Standardization is great, and it makes each launcher a sidegrade in terms of space and weight, but larger launchers still fire more missiles.

Reading posts that you quote is great too though, you should do it some time.

[Aim64C]

I piggy-backed about a year ago, or so, off of another member's idea for LRMs.

I forget exactly what his idea was - but it inspired my idea for an LRM locking mechanic.

Basically - you hold down your weapon group button assigned to LRMs. During this time, each missile on your mech 'rolls' for a lock. The probability of obtaining a lock during each 'roll' (to occur, say, every 250ms - or whatever is appropriate) is determined by factors such as range, presence of ECM, BAP, Artemis, LOS, C3, environmental factors (heavy obscuring precipitation), what have you.
When the button is released, all missiles fire - with missiles not locked flying to strike the last location of the target.

Locked missiles would fly in an exaggerated parabola using simple proportional navigation (they would also behave according to true ballistic models rather than simply being magical floating explosives) - until they begin their terminal guidance phase when they begin their ballistic descent (or close within 250 meters). At this point, they begin "augmented" proportional navigation and roll for which hitbox to guide to.

At this point, NARC and/or TAG will trigger re-rolls of the target hitboxes with a bias toward the affected hitbox(es). IE - if you were to illuminate the left torso with a TAG, it would trigger a re-roll of terminally guiding missiles, biasing that roll to prefer the left torso and adjoining boxes over other sections. A NARC would bias, to a lesser degree (since it **** in target lock and TAG would not), toward the hitbox is it attached to.

Augmented Proportional Navigation is very close to what real missiles use to intercept targets - it allows missiles traveling only moderately faster than their targets to successfully intercept them (and it is a very simple formula).



If you notice - the formula takes into account the missile's acceleration. Basically - it is set to turn, say, 3x faster in the direction the target is - multiplied by internal accelerometer readings that will account for factors such as gravity and the missile's own acceleration.

This means that it automatically compensates for ballistic drop (gravity) and makes most of its adjustments at the beginning of the thrust phase.

This is the way that missiles in their terminal guidance phase should behave. Surface-to-Surface missiles use a slightly different formula under FLINT - actually broken up into stages of guidance to place more emphasis on a top-down strike - but the principle is much the same. Simple formulas that create a very dynamic feedback loop effective for generating an intercept.

If you wanted to get fancy - I would suggest that un-locked missiles would, upon activating terminal guidance, seek out nearby TAG or NARC signatures - but that is perhaps a little too much.

Streak LRMs would only fire locked missiles and would therefor conserve unfired missiles. Perhaps a module would allow a "double tap" on an un-reloaded launcher that would allow someone with unfired Streak LRMs to interrupt a reload to lock said unfired missiles on the same or another target.

This would mean that the difference between individual missile batteries would largely disappear.

But, there again, most of my ideas get pretty crazy compared to the standard fare of video game programming.

[MischiefSC]

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Congrats, you read absolutely NOTHING of the post you quoted.

I said to standardize launcher size and weight, so that no combination of launchers is inherently superior. More tubes fired = less accuracy as well, so 4x LRM-5's is just as inaccurate as a single LRM-20. I'd also argue that you should just standardize RoF as well, so the only determining factor is how much free tonnage/space you have.

Your example would look like this with my idea:

8x LRM-5 (40 tubes):
16 tons
8 crits
4.00 CD
X Heat (I don't know yet)

2x LRM-20 (40 tubes):
16 tons
8 crits
4.00 CD
X Heat (I don't know yet)

If you can manage to find a Mech with 8 Missile hardpoints though, bravo to you. Either way, 30 tubes v 40 tubes will always result in the higher number of tubes weighing more. So I evened up the tube count for a more equal comparison... They're exactly the same in tonnage and space, with the exact same CD and X amount of heat. Standardization is great, and it makes each launcher a sidegrade in terms of space and weight, but larger launchers still fire more missiles.

Reading posts that you quote is great too though, you should do it some time.

You should re-read your own post. All you talked about was weight, not DPS, heat, etc. Which was the point of my post.

Balance them across the spectrum of weight, space, DPS, heat, etc. Scaled up. Your last post I agree with. The one I quoted, however, didn't say that.

I responded to what you actually posted. Not what you were thinking but didn't write.

[ShadowWolf Kell]

MischiefSC, on 08 November 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

You should re-read your own post. All you talked about was weight, not DPS, heat, etc. Which was the point of my post.

Balance them across the spectrum of weight, space, DPS, heat, etc. Scaled up. Your last post I agree with. The one I quoted, however, didn't say that.

I responded to what you actually posted. Not what you were thinking but didn't write.

They need to address spread normalization first for all launcher imo, which is the crux of the problem.

[MischiefSC]

ShadowWolf Kell, on 08 November 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

They need to address spread normalization first for all launcher imo, which is the crux of the problem.

Spread, plus DPS, plus tonnage/crit spaces. Even with identical spread you bring 4 LRM5s instead of 2 LRM15s, less tonnage, less crits means you can pack in 2 extra DHS to deal with the heat (and then some so it runs cooler), carrying more ammo and do more DPS.

Standardize LRMs and you'll see them self-balance in terms of boats vs mixed loadouts. Which is good.

[Tlords]

I could not agree more with the OP. The LRM 20 should be better than 4 LRM5s, better than 2 2LRM10s, better than an LRM5 and one LRM15. It weighs more and takes up more critical slots.

One way to do this is to make the reload speed of all LRMs equal.

As for SRMs, the SRM6 should be equal to 3SRM2s, an SRM4 and an SRM2. The smaller launchers need to have their reload speed equal to the larger launchers.

So if I was king for a day - all SRM launchers and LRM launchers would have the same reload speed and spread.

[Tlords]

I also think PGI realized the LRM20 is crap. No IS mech got an LRM20 quirk.

[Alek Ituin]

MischiefSC, on 08 November 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

You should re-read your own post. All you talked about was weight, not DPS, heat, etc. Which was the point of my post.

Balance them across the spectrum of weight, space, DPS, heat, etc. Scaled up. Your last post I agree with. The one I quoted, however, didn't say that.

I responded to what you actually posted. Not what you were thinking but didn't write.

You seem like the kind of person who tries to complete a project all at once. Trust me, never works, you just end up with a bunch of half-solutions that don't actually function well together. Kind of why I focused on one facet at a time instead of going for the entire thing.

Standardizing weight and space makes each launcher a similar investment, with no combination being inherently superior due to either factor. Elaborating on the idea further, I decided a 4.00 CD is some kind of middle ground... Figure out Heat per shot and you're set. Balance from LRM-5 up, so... LRM-5 (1.5 Heat), LRM-10 (3 Heat), LRM-15 (4.5 Heat), LRM-20 (6 Heat).

Therefore, your launchers are all... standardized. 4x LRM-5 does the exact same thing as 1x LRM-20, there's no difference at all. Assuming of course that one uses an accuracy scale based on tubes fired.


But yeah... I actually do have the issue of thinking much further ahead of what I communicate. I assumed you had been caught up telepathically, you sure you didn't get the telepathic memo?

[MischiefSC]

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

You seem like the kind of person who tries to complete a project all at once. Trust me, never works, you just end up with a bunch of half-solutions that don't actually function well together. Kind of why I focused on one facet at a time instead of going for the entire thing.

Standardizing weight and space makes each launcher a similar investment, with no combination being inherently superior due to either factor. Elaborating on the idea further, I decided a 4.00 CD is some kind of middle ground... Figure out Heat per shot and you're set. Balance from LRM-5 up, so... LRM-5 (1.5 Heat), LRM-10 (3 Heat), LRM-15 (4.5 Heat), LRM-20 (6 Heat).

Therefore, your launchers are all... standardized. 4x LRM-5 does the exact same thing as 1x LRM-20, there's no difference at all. Assuming of course that one uses an accuracy scale based on tubes fired.


But yeah... I actually do have the issue of thinking much further ahead of what I communicate. I assumed you had been caught up telepathically, you sure you didn't get the telepathic memo?

So you and I are on the same page. I'm just a fan of 'don't get people used to something half done or they'll want it half done the whole time'. Same way our current ECM/LRM balance is. it was originally a 'place holder'.

If you've got the tonnage and space for 4xLRM20s that should be superior to 4xLRM10s. Currently it's not. That's a bad design.

[Alek Ituin]

MischiefSC, on 08 November 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

So you and I are on the same page. I'm just a fan of 'don't get people used to something half done or they'll want it half done the whole time'. Same way our current ECM/LRM balance is. it was originally a 'place holder'.

If you've got the tonnage and space for 4xLRM20s that should be superior to 4xLRM10s. Currently it's not. That's a bad design.

I would hope 80 tubes beats 40 tubes.... >_>