21 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Something has been bothering me for a while.
I won't go into the whole LRMs are UP discussion, because it's not what this is about.
It's about the unnecessarily different recycling rates between different sized launchers, which don't really make sense balance wise. For autocannons, having smaller caliber weapons fire faster does make some amount of sense, due to their non-linear damage and tonnage increase, however on missiles, the damage between the different sizes is completely linear, so the increase in fire rate of smaller missile systems leads to discrepancies in the DPS.

In TT (yes, i'm bringing up TT), 2 LRM5 were already better than a single LRM10 in every way: they dealt the same amount of damage for the same amount of heat, except having 2 LRM5s weighed 1 ton less. In MW:O having 2 LRM5s has another advantage - LRM5s have increased recycling rate, which increases their DPS in comparison to the single LRM10. Here's a couple of DPS calculations, just to illustrate the point.

2xLRM5 DPS - 3.38 as opposed to LRM10 DPS - 2.93, which is an increase of 15% in DPS
3xLRM5 DPS - 5.07 as opposed to LRM15 DPS - 3.88, which is an even larger increase in DPS - 30%
4xLRM5 DPS - 6.76 as opposed to LRM20 DPS - 4.63, which is a whopping increase of 46% in DPS! (4xLRM5s also weigh less and take up less slots than a single LRM20, however it does have a slight increase in heat generation, but the pros easily overcome the cons)
This encourages boating of smaller launchers, punishing the mechs that are hardpoint starved and are unable to boat multiple smaller launchers and don't forget that multiple smaller launchers come with other advantages, like better heat control; chainfiring them for constant cockpit shake and much lower spread (if you ever used LRMs, you must have noticed that smaller LRM launchers have much tighter spread, even without Artemis, than larger launchers).

This problem is also visible in SRMs, but, in my opinion, due to some variables, is less significant.
2xSRM2 DPS - 3.44 as opposed to SRM4 DPS - 2.65, which is an increase of 30% in DPS
3xSRM2 DPS - 5.16 as opposed to SRM 6 DPS - 3.23, which is an increase of 60% in DPS!
Even though, the math shows a much higher DPS discrepancy than in LRMs, multiple SRM2 launchers have 25-33% increase in heat generation, while taking up extra slots in comparison to the larger launchers (the tonnage between multiple launchers and one larger one is identical, unlike LRM, where multiple smaller launchers are lighter and take up less slots)

Now that you (even if you disagree) can see where i'm coming with this, i'd propose a solution.
And you probably guessed the solution. Simply make all LRM (and maybe SRMs, but for the most part SRMs seem balanced) have identical recycling rates.
Currently, LRMs are almost ever used in multiple LRM5s (6xLRM5 Catapults, Mad Dogs for example), because using one larger launcher instead of them is unpractical and punishes mechs that only have little amount of hardpoints, which leads to people never using them.
Just keep in mind, even if they made the recycling rates identical, it wouldn't make the hardpoint-rich chassis obsolete, because multiple smaller launchers would still have tighter spread, lower weight, lower amount of slots and be capable of chainfiring for better heat management and increased cockpit shake.

TL:DR - I'm asking to 'normalize' the recycling rates between different missile launcher sizes, because it makes sense. HONEST.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 02 May 2015 - 05:33 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

technically, on tabletop LRM-5 boating isn't better in EVERY way, just 99.99% of the time but yeah, the cycling time of of LRMs is a little irrational.

[MrMadguy]

Common mistake of all so called "couch analyst" - you're comparing two systems by only one parameter, while ignoring all other parameters. Why DPS only, which is pessimistic multiplicative criteria? May be you should use weighted additive criteria of all weapon parameters? M?
Simple example:
4xLRM5 - 2.48 HPS => LRM20 - 1.26 HPS
3xLRM5 - 1.86 HPS => LRM15 - 1.18 HPS
2xLRM5 - 1.24 HPS => LRM10 - 1.07 HPS

Edited by MrMadguy, 02 May 2015 - 05:55 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2015 - 05:53 AM, said:

Common mistake of all so called "sofa analyst" - you're comparing two systems by only one parameter, while ignoring all other parameters. Why DPS only, which is pessimistic multiplicative criteria? May be you should use weighted additive criteria of all weapon parameters? M?
Simple example:
4xLRM5 - 2.48 HPS => LRM20 - 1.26 HPS
3xLRM5 - 1.86 HPS => LRM15 - 1.18 HPS
2xLRM5 - 1.24 HPS => LRM10 - 1.07 HPS

But the increased Heat per second is the RESULT of increased recycle rate. If it was identical the difference in HEAT PER SECOND would be much much lesser (even identical in the case of LRM10 vs 2xLRM5)

[MrMadguy]

Juodas Varnas, on 02 May 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

But the increased Heat per second is the RESULT of increased recycle rate. If it was identical the difference in HEAT PER SECOND would be much much lesser (even identical in the case of LRM10 vs 2xLRM5)

You getting 46% more DPS, but losing 146% of heat efficiency. Fair trade off?

[Juodas Varnas]

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

You getting 46% more DPS, but losing 146% of heat efficiency. Fair trade off?

Then why not having 0% increase in DPS and 0% increase in heat? Wouldn't that be more logical then? Less convoluted and stupid?

[MrMadguy]

Juodas Varnas, on 02 May 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

Then why not having 0% increase in DPS and 0% increase in heat? Wouldn't that be more logical then? Less convoluted and stupid?

DPS and heat - are not the only parameters in this equation. There are much more - more then dozen. Optimization problems are always non-linear and solution is aways unevident - that's why they're so interesting to solve. You shouldn't be able to calculate the best solution, cuz otherwise sites like Smorfy could already be providing best builds for every 'Mech - there should be some range of equal solutions and you should find that one, that suits your playstyle the most, via method of experimenting and method of trials and errors.

Edited by MrMadguy, 02 May 2015 - 06:16 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

You getting 46% more DPS, but losing 146% of heat efficiency. Fair trade off?

negative, actually. since you can opt to chainfire the LRM5s to micromanage your heat more efficiently. LRM alphas are only advisable when you have a single window of assured contact, normally it's better to pop your racks in sequence to conserve ammo and avoid ye olde ghost heat.

[Alistair Winter]

I actually like what PGI tried to do, namely to create different alternatives for missile boats. In 2012, choosing your LRMs and SRMs was a simple matter of arithmetic. You just chose whatever option gave you most firepower for the tonnage, tubes and hardpoints you had available. That makes sense, but it also makes SRM-boating and LRM-boating a lot more boring than laser-boating. The laserboat can choose between 6 different lasers, with completely different characteristics and, thus, six different playstyles. The same could not be said for the missile boats.

Now you have a choice between high DPS (LRM5, SRM2) and high alphastrike (LRM15/20, SRM6) and LRM10/SRM4 as a compromise. For a Centurion with a big ballistic weapon, 3 missile hardpoints and limited tonnage, 3xSRM2 is a viable alternative to SRM6, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.

For a game with relatively monotonous gameplay, often dominated by cookie-cutter meta builds for months or years at a time, any attempt to create more variation is usually a good thing, in my book. It's just a shame they stopped working on the core stats and began resorting to quirks to get the job done.

The big problem is Clan LRMs, because 6 short streams of 5 missiles is so much better than 2 long streams of 15 missiles. They really need to balance Clan LRMs better, to stop LRM5-boating from being the absolutely best option for the Mad Dog, for example. I've got 2xLRM20s on my Mad Dog Prime, but it's more for nostalgia than anything.

[Juodas Varnas]

Alistair Winter, on 02 May 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

Now you have a choice between high DPS (LRM5, SRM2) and high alphastrike (LRM15/20, SRM6) and LRM10/SRM4 as a compromise. For a Centurion with a big ballistic weapon, 3 missile hardpoints and limited tonnage, 3xSRM2 is a viable alternative to SRM6, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.

I see what you're saying, but i don't see how having multiple small launchers decreases your alphastriking ability, because it really doesn't. It just adds the ability to choose to either chain-fire or not, depending on the circumstances. Something you do not get when using a single larger launcher, so you not only do not get the versatility of multiple launchers, you also get lower DPS and lower spread (from my personal anecdotal experience, no math involved cause i've no idea how one would calculate it, non-artemis LRM5s have tighter spread than Artemis LRM15s and LRM20s)

Again, all i'm saying that it punishes mechs that are already hardpoint-starved, which leads to them to not even bother using LRMs.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw someone running a single LRM20 launcher or an LRM15, instead of 3-6 LRM5s? (Unless the guy was running a stock mech or the mech is quirked for them, i don't really see it happening)

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 02 May 2015 - 06:31 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Ragtag soldier, on 02 May 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

negative, actually. since you can opt to chainfire the LRM5s to micromanage your heat more efficiently. LRM alphas are only advisable when you have a single window of assured contact, normally it's better to pop your racks in sequence to conserve ammo and avoid ye olde ghost heat.

DPS vs Alpha - is another important decision making factor in this game. Otherwise high Alpha weapons, like PPC and AC/20 would be pointless, as lighter weapons provide more DPS for lesser weight and slots cost. MWO is shooter - not MMORPG, where only DPS matters. Numbers like DPS, HPS, DPH, DPS/T are used only to simplify perception of the game mechanics for those people, who are not familiar with such a scary things, as "Theory of decision making" and "Theory of optimization".

Edited by MrMadguy, 02 May 2015 - 06:36 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

DPS vs Alpha - is another important decision making factor in this game. Otherwise high Alpha weapons, like PPC and AC/20 would be pointless, as lighter weapons provide more DPS for lesser weight and slots cost. MWO is shooter - not MMORPG, where only DPS matters. Numbers like DPS, HPS, DPH, DPS/T are used only to simplify perception of the game mechanics for those people, who are not familiar with such a scary things, as "Theory of decision making" and "Theory of optimization".

...Are you serious? The difference between small LRMs vs large LRMs and small ballistics vs large ballistics is completely unrelated.
The thing that makes large ballistics better than small ones is because small ones spread damage much more, it's much easier to hit the enemy with a single round than shoot him for 5 seconds into the same component, not only that, bigger ballistics don't need as much exposure time, you pop out, hit, pop back out. With small ballistics you need to be constantly facing the enemy to shoot him, if you want to match the bigger ballistics in terms of DPS!
These things, like exposure time ARE MEANINGLESS when it comes to LRMs.
DPS is basically the ONLY thing that matters with them! Other thing that matter is SPREAD, which is tighter on smaller launchers. There's is NO REASON to use a large launcher over multiple small ones. There's no trade-off, it's NOT A CHOICE you make. If you have a lot of hardpoints, you boat small launchers, if you don't, well, you don't use LRMs then.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 02 May 2015 - 06:44 AM.

[kapusta11]

You forgot about missile spread, OP, another avdantage small launchers have over the big ones. The raw damage is meaningless if it's spread all over the place.

[Juodas Varnas]

kapusta11, on 02 May 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

You forgot about missile spread, OP, another avdantage small launchers have over the big ones. The raw damage is meaningless if it's spread all over the place.

Well, i did mention that, from my experience the smaller launchers have tighter spread. But there isn't really a way to calculate it, or at least i have no idea how to do it.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 02 May 2015 - 06:54 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Juodas Varnas, on 02 May 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

...Are you serious? The difference between small LRMs vs large LRMs and small ballistics vs large ballistics is completely unrelated.
The thing that makes large ballistics better than small ones is because small ones spread damage much more, it's much easier to hit the enemy with a single round than shoot him for 5 seconds into the same component, not only that, bigger ballistics don't need as much exposure time, you pop out, hit, pop back out. With small ballistics you need to be constantly facing the enemy to shoot him, if you want to match the bigger ballistics in terms of DPS!
These things, like exposure time ARE MEANINGLESS when it comes to LRMs.
DPS is basically the ONLY thing that matters with them! Other thing that matter is SPREAD, which is tighter on smaller launchers. There's is NO REASON to use a large launcher over multiple small ones. There's no trade-off, it's NOT A CHOICE you make. If you have a lot of hardpoints, you boat small launchers, if you don't, well, you don't use LRMs then.

As former owner of several LRM50 and LRM60 boats, I declare with all responsibility - heat and alpha damage are very important! Overheating usually prevents me from doing enough damage at that narrow window, when enemies are the most vulnerable to LRM rain. And lack of alpha launching - is what turns Clan 'Mechs into extremely terrible LRM boats. While LRM60 Awesome is still works like a death machine even after all LRM nerfs, LRM60 Timber Wolfs at the same time deal close to zero damage.

Juodas Varnas, on 02 May 2015 - 06:53 AM, said:

Well, i did mention that, from my experience the smaller launchers have tighter spread. But there isn't really a way to calculate it, or at least i have no idea how to do it.

It depends more on hardpoint position, then on launcher size. My 4xLRM5 externally mounted hardpoints on Catapult-A1 have even bigger spread, then internally mounted 2xLRM10 ones. And... I thought, that point, to where LRM missile will hit, is determined by RNG algorithm, where every part of 'Mech (including completely missing the target) has some chance to be hit, so launcher size really should no matter, cuz every missile has it's independent chance to hit something.

Edited by MrMadguy, 02 May 2015 - 07:06 AM.

[Ragtag soldier]

MrMadguy, on 02 May 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

While LRM60 Awesome is still works like a death machine even after all LRM nerfs, LRM60 Timber Wolfs at the same time deal close to zero damage.

this isn't because of launcher size efficiencies, this is because the game's hitreg is wonkey as hell and punishes weapons landing multiple discrete hits in rapid succession. since the awesome is dropping heavier blows, spaced further apart more of it's total missiles connect while the server just drops a large percent of the madcat's connecting missile stream.

[FupDup]

The current system isn't perfect, but the overall intention of it is good. It's to try to give you a choice between having a few large launchers for high alpha and low hardpoint usage, or a bunch of small launchers for lower alpha but faster reloads and lower spread at the cost of many hardpoints being used.

If you put all of them at the same cooldown and same spread, everybody's gonna just use the biggest alpha launchers. The SRM2 is already useless enough as it is, even with tighter spread and really fast reload, it doesn't need this.


Most of the launchers actually have a role right now. SRM4 and SRM6 are decently balanced against each other. You use SRM6 if you're short on hardpoints and want to spend less weight on Artemis, and you use SRM4 for a bit faster cooldown and tighter non-Artemis spread.

The LRM family is mostly decent as well. The LRM10 is the generalist launcher that's all-around the "best of both worlds" between LRM5 and LRM15. The LRM15 is for if you want more alpha, are short on hardpoints, and/or want less Artemis tonnage. The LRM5 is for if you have a crapton of hardpoints and/or rather low spare weight to spend.


The only real outliers in the missile world right now are the LRM20 and the SRM2. The former doesn't give much benefit over the LRM15 (or any other launcher) and the SRM2 is just piddly. Adjust these two and the system will mostly be fine.

Edited by FupDup, 02 May 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[jlawsl]

I understand the what the op is getting at. I use AWS models and try all kinds of builds on them as all but one have between 2 and 4 missile points on them. It is all a matter of play style and opportunity. LRMs in most cases have a very long time to kill because of their spread, need for a lock, vulnerability to ecm and ams and slow rate of travel. But you must also take into account the specific mech.

What makes an AWS-8R such a great missile boat, possibly the best bang for its buck in that regard? Its tube layout. Some stalkers have more hard points, all have 5 more tons, but they fire in small volleys. The same goes for Atlases, which also share another issue with King Crabs(especially the 0000), even though the crabs have full 20 missile launchers, they are all in one torso. Weight comes into play as well. The 8R, on the other hand has 4 full 15 tube launchers, so all missiles hit at the same time. Your window for error is significantly decreased and all heat is applied on the front end, instead of steps.

Small weapon systems like the LRM5 and launchers that fire in volleys are also more vulnerable to AMS, but reward you with a constant impulse of screen shake, much like the clan launchers.

As for SRMs, I have found that the different launchers tend to lend themselves to different playstyles but tend to follow the same patterns. I put 4 ASRM6 launchers on an 8R with both LVL5 modules and 1000 rounds of ammo, no lasers. It was good for repeated Apha brawling at short range. Good for taking off components and slugging it out at a very nice heat efficiency(1.87-1.92). The SRM 2s play better with mechs like the AWS-9M and PB because of their launcher size(mostly 2 and 4 tube) and the mech speed. If you play a mech as a striker or skirmisher, SRM2s lend themselves well to volleys of lasers, torso twist, snap shots and constant impulse shake. They are always going to reload fast enough to get those critical shots in while allowing you to twist or run out of harm's way.

Like I said, its all about play style. I can go head to head at short range with the 8R srm boat against most anything simply because it is able to front load its damage, 51.6 at a time every few seconds just if it was armed with srm6s. With 2 LPLs and 3 srm2s and 1spl, the PB will put out 24.4 dps(with quirks and modules) or a total alpha of 38.9. The 8R(lvl5 recharge modules) with 3 spls and 4 srm6s has the exact same dps-24.4 but puts out a 63.6 point alpha. Same dps, different rolls.

Edited by jlawsl, 02 May 2015 - 10:25 AM.

[Damocles]

alter their respective crit hit resistances :|

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 02 May 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

I actually like what PGI tried to do, namely to create different alternatives for missile boats. In 2012, choosing your LRMs and SRMs was a simple matter of arithmetic. You just chose whatever option gave you most firepower for the tonnage, tubes and hardpoints you had available. That makes sense, but it also makes SRM-boating and LRM-boating a lot more boring than laser-boating. The laserboat can choose between 6 different lasers, with completely different characteristics and, thus, six different playstyles. The same could not be said for the missile boats.

Now you have a choice between high DPS (LRM5, SRM2) and high alphastrike (LRM15/20, SRM6) and LRM10/SRM4 as a compromise. For a Centurion with a big ballistic weapon, 3 missile hardpoints and limited tonnage, 3xSRM2 is a viable alternative to SRM6, and they have different advantages and disadvantages.

For a game with relatively monotonous gameplay, often dominated by cookie-cutter meta builds for months or years at a time, any attempt to create more variation is usually a good thing, in my book. It's just a shame they stopped working on the core stats and began resorting to quirks to get the job done.

The big problem is Clan LRMs, because 6 short streams of 5 missiles is so much better than 2 long streams of 15 missiles. They really need to balance Clan LRMs better, to stop LRM5-boating from being the absolutely best option for the Mad Dog, for example. I've got 2xLRM20s on my Mad Dog Prime, but it's more for nostalgia than anything.

MW4 did a good balance on this imo, at least for LRMs (and microslots helped).

Basically you boated the smaller tubes over taking one large launcher to make your missile packets more concentrated. So in MW4, regardless of the model, LRMs always shot in packets of 5, which meant anything larger than an LRM5 launched in volley fire thus why small launchers were more concentrated. The tradeoff however was heat, as the smaller the launcher, the less heat efficient it was for the damage.

The only problem with the translation from MW4 to MWO, is that of hardpoints as that is the real reason the smaller launchers needed to be improved. With hardpoints as few as they are, you couldn't boat LRM5s in place of a 15 or 20 because of hardpoint limitations. Currently however, the larger launchers need improvements because they are simply too inefficient over their smaller cousins thanks to the combination of improved accuracy and DPS.