142 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 January 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

The ERLL is 12 heat in battletech for a reason.

That reason isn't because of balance, it is because that happens to match the heat of Clan ERLL, just like how all the other IS ER weapons have the exact same as Clan ERs. It also only has a 1 hex advantage over standard PPCs, so I wouldn't exactly call that an extreme range weapon like Gauss/Lt Gauss/ERPPCs or Clan ERLL.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 January 2016 - 12:54 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Khobai, on 21 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

Fixing LRMs is more complicated than that.

But yes increasing the damage per missile and lowering the rate of fire is one of the things missiles need to reduce their spammability and screenshake and increase their armor penetration.

But LRMs have other issues like velocity, ECM, indirect fire balance, that also need to be addressed. There is another topic where this is currently being discussed.

Honestly? I would just rip the MW4 LRM mechanic. Every 5 ratings is equal to either one missile or a "cluster" of 5 missiles, so an LRM5 is 1 cluster, 10 is two, 15 is 3, and 20 is 4. Each cluster does a 5 damage packet to any one given component hit. That way the damage of LRM fire is not so horribly smeared as it is currently. Clan LRM clusters do a linear damage drop under minimum range, but make Clan LRMs have a slightly longer cooldown and a much flatter trajectory so as to be better shifted towards more direct fire use.

Compensate it by changing AMS mechanics, as well. Again, back to the MW4 style system where 1 AMS = 1 destroyed cluster per LRM launcher used. Only your own AMS will protect you from LRM fire. Yes, this does mean if you have an AMS you are immune to LRM5, and if you have 2 you are immune to LRM10. However, it means the AMS equipped mech next to you cannot help you against LRM.

Edited AMS portion based on quick discussion. Instead:

*AMS with a flat base % chance of shooting down each cluster inbound, with a flat % increase per AMS equipped, starting at 25% chance base for AMS. Each additional AMS would increase the per cluster chance by 12.5%. So 4x chances against an LRM20, or 12x chances against 6 LRM10, etc. Only your AMS would protect you from LRM fire. No allies' AMS would help you out.

*numbers open to tweaking

This way LRMs are far more effective weapons overall, but AMS can severely limit the damage potential of LRM boats. AMS becomes equipment you want to devote tonnage towards on an individual basis and, because they are so effective on a per cluster basis it incentivises taking one or two large LRM launches as opposed to several smaller ones which is the current go to approach you would get a lot more utility and potential damage protection out of them.

Extreme AMS case:

KFX or NVA with 3xAMS. It would be immune to LRM15 fire, but still take damage from a LRM20. However, that tonnage investment that was spent on those AMS and the ammo to feed them are limited to only that specific mech's personal protection, and not of those around it. Further, any LRMs that do penetrate the AMS (IE: 1 cluster from an LRM20) is 5 damage, pinpoint, where ever it hits.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 21 January 2016 - 01:27 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 21 January 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

Again, back to the MW4 style system where 1 AMS = 1 destroyed cluster per LRM launcher used.

You had me until this part, as that was the reason LRM5s were absolutely worthless. One of the mods made it random which I feel is much more appropriate with multiple AMS system adding to that chance with maybe diminishing returns.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 January 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

You had me until this part, as that was the reason LRM5s were absolutely worthless. One of the mods made it random which I feel is much more appropriate with multiple AMS system adding to that chance with maybe diminishing returns.

Hey, this was a rough idea for a reason. I'm not unreasonable and welcome alternative viewpoints and suggestions to make a more inclusive, cohesive whole. We do need to make AMS worth taking, however.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 21 January 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 21 January 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

Hey, this was a rough idea for a reason. I'm not unreasonable and welcome alternative viewpoints and suggestions to make a more inclusive, cohesive whole. We do need to make AMS worth taking, however.

Oh trust me, AMS was important in the HC mod. When MRMs have 700m range (which would be like 500m in this game), lock-on, 200-300 m/s flight speed, and had an arc trajectory, AMS was your friend if you could take it. having a 25% change to knock down missiles locked on to you is always nice.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 January 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 January 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Oh trust me, AMS was important in the HC mod. When MRMs have 700m range (which would be like 500m in this game), lock-on, 200-300 m/s flight speed, and had an arc trajectory, AMS was your friend if you could take it. having a 25% change to knock down missiles locked on to you is always nice.

So, what, was it a % per cluster system it had? If so, it could be workable. AMS with a flat base % chance of shooting down each cluster inbound, with a flat % increase per AMS equipped? Say, 25% chance base for AMS, plus 12.5% per additional AMS, per inbound cluster? (So 4x chances against an LRM20, or 12x chances against 6 LRM10, etc.)

*again, numbers open to tweaking

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 21 January 2016 - 01:13 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Pariah Devalis, on 21 January 2016 - 01:12 PM, said:

So, what, was it a % per cluster system it had? If so, it could be workable. AMS with a flat base % chance of shooting down each cluster inbound, with a flat % increase per AMS equipped? Say, 25% chance per AMS, per inbound cluster? (So 4x chances against an LRM20, or 12x chances against 6 LRM10, etc)

Yes, it was a per cluster chance, at least for weapons like MRMs, ATMs, and LRMs, I believe SRMs were still per missile.

Which ended up creating a nice dynamic between LRM5s and LRM20s. LRM20s and their heat efficiency allowed you to have a bigger alpha while 5s tended to be incredibly focuses with their damage and increased chance for knockdown (8 LRM5 SCats were great for knocking down enemy scouts). 10 and 15s you just used in place of 20s if hardpoints prevented you from mounting 20s.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 January 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 January 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Yes, it was a per cluster chance, at least for weapons like MRMs and LRMs, I believe SRMs were still per missile.

I... think I like that system, actually. It keeps AMS relevant, allows scaling for multiple AMS, and compensates for otherwise actually usefully effective LRMs.

Edited original suggestion post.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 21 January 2016 - 01:23 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 21 January 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Ranged energy weapons like the ERLL are supposed to cost a massive amount of heat to fire. The ERLL is 12 heat in battletech for a reason.

That reason was because FASA wanted Inner Sphere large-class energy weapons (e.g. LL, ERLL, LPL) to be inferior to PPCs in most circumstances.


PPC
10 damage
10 heat
1 damage per heat
540m range

ERLL
8 damage
12 heat
0.67 damage per heat
570m range

The ERLL gains +30m range over the PPC in exchange for -2 damage and +2 heat. That seems pretty damn favored towards the PPC...

Edited by FupDup, 21 January 2016 - 01:58 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 21 January 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

That reason was because FASA wanted Inner Sphere large-class energy weapons (e.g. LL, ERLL, LPL) to be inferior to PPCs in most circumstances.


PPC
10 damage
10 heat
1 damage per heat
540m range

ERLL
8 damage
12 heat
0.67 damage per heat
570m range

The ERLL gains +30m range over the PPC in exchange for -2 damage and +2 heat. That seems pretty damn favored towards the PPC...

To be fair, the ERLL doesn't have minimum range and I believe has at least 1 hex advantage over the PPC in every range bracket which is more important that it looks. That said, if you could customize your mech, PPCs (or Heavy PPCs) + MLs (or MPLs if you can) tends to be one of the best combos.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 January 2016 - 02:10 PM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 January 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

To be fair, the ERLL doesn't have minimum range and I believe has at least 1 hex advantage over the PPC in every range bracket which is more important that it looks. That said, if you could customize your mech, PPCs (or Heavy PPCs) + MLs (or MPLs if you can) tends to be one of the best combos.

Sarna time...

PPC
Short: 1-6
Mid: 7-12
Long: 13-18

ERLL
Short: 1-7
Mid: 8-14
Long: 15-19

So that is verified...I still think the damage per heat is bonkers though. That's in part because the vanilla LL wasn't that great to begin with, so the ERLL inherits some of that...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 21 January 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

So that is verified...I still think the damage per heat is bonkers though. That's in part because the vanilla LL wasn't that great to begin with, so the ERLL inherits some of that...

It is, if it had better range it would be more worth it, which is why there is custom rules in Megamek for extending the IS ERLL's range a bit more (I believe to 21-23 hexes) which makes its heat more justifiable, but don't forget the ridiculous heat to damage of the IS ERPPC which suffers a similar problem.

[Khobai]

Quote

That reason was because FASA wanted Inner Sphere large-class energy weapons (e.g. LL, ERLL, LPL) to be inferior to PPCs in most circumstances.

what? the ERLL has a massive range advantage over the PPC. so dunno what youre talking about.

the difference is in battletech longer range actually came with a cost... where in MWO it doesnt really. The ERLL is only 1 heat more than the LL in MWO and theres literally no reason not to use the ERLL because the heat difference is negligable compared to the LL.

weapon balance is still absurdly screwed up in MWO... how is the ERLL having 50% more range than the LL only worth 1 extra heat? paul math is TERRIBLE.

Edited by Khobai, 21 January 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 21 January 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

what? the ERLL has a massive range advantage over the PPC. so dunno what youre talking about.

the difference is in battletech longer range came with a cost... where in MWO it doesnt really. The ERLL is only 1 heat more than the LL and theres literally no reason not to use the ERLL because the heat difference is negligable compared to the massive range difference.

30 meters (the TT range advantage) isn't massive.

In MWO, the biggest difference is beam duration.

Edited by FupDup, 21 January 2016 - 03:17 PM.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 21 January 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

30 meters (the TT range advantage) isn't massive.

In MWO, the biggest difference is beam duration.

Yep. PPCs, when good, was simply abusable thanks to its PPFLD nature. IMO the velocity needs to be kept low (as in less than 1200ms) to compensate for its PPFLD nature, while the heat should be reduced to be less punishing.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 21 January 2016 - 06:38 PM, said:

Yep. PPCs, when good, was simply abusable thanks to its PPFLD nature. IMO the velocity needs to be kept low (as in less than 1200ms) to compensate for its PPFLD nature, while the heat should be reduced to be less punishing.

Did you quote the right post? The one you quoted didn't have anything to do with PPFLD or velocity.

I'm not a fan of the low velocity + low heat idea because that tries to push the weapon into a brawling/DPS role, which seems pretty odd for a weapon with the range/weight that it has. The PPC also has a reputation with many players as a "big" main gun, as seen by people asking PGI to make PPC geometry larger on certain mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

El Bandito, on 21 January 2016 - 06:38 PM, said:

while the heat should be reduced to be less punishing.

So you want a repeat of the TDR-9S.....

Some of us don't want the solution to simply be "well this weapon sucks, let's make it more spammable" because we end up with some really dumb situations.

The thing that solidified the era of PPCs wasn't velocity, it was poptarting, ignoring the fact that Gauss has reigned supreme since closed beta.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 January 2016 - 06:52 PM.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 21 January 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

I'm not a fan of the low velocity + low heat idea because that tries to push the weapon into a brawling/DPS role, which seems pretty odd for a weapon with the range/weight that it has. The PPC also has a reputation with many players as a "big" main gun, as seen by people asking PGI to make PPC geometry larger on certain mechs.

Why not? I tend to think of the PPC as the energy version of the AC10, rather than some sniper weapon, which it isn't. ERPPC should be the long range weapon.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 January 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:

So you want a repeat of the TDR-9S.....

Some of us don't want the solution to simply be "well this weapon sucks, let's make it more spammable" because we end up with some really dumb situations.

TDR-9S is a case of quirks gone wrong, instead of the weapon issue itself.


Which is why I said this:

El Bandito, on 20 January 2016 - 05:18 AM, said:

PGI can immediately add three new weapons if they buff the LBX, the Flamer and the MG back to usefulness. And it does not require a rocket scientist.

And buff IS lasers/ER/PPCs so PGI can finally remove/reduce some of the ridiculously large quirks people are taking advantage of.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 January 2016 - 06:49 PM.

[FupDup]

El Bandito, on 21 January 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Why not? I tend to think of the PPC as the energy version of the AC10, rather than some sniper weapon, which it isn't. ERPPC should be the long range weapon.

The vanilla Peep isn't nearly as long as the ER, but I think that 540m can still be classified as the lower end of "long" range. I'd call 450m or so (same range as the AC/10 or vanilla LL) the area for "medium" range, as seen by Medium Range Missiles.

The ER Peep isn't exactly a sniper weapon either with its current velocity...Reducing its heat wouldn't impact its ability to poke people at such long ranges. Reduced heat is most beneficial in mid to short range prolonged fights.

In general, I kind of like the flavor of making lasers and PPCs have different purposes. Lasers so far are the reliable, spammable generalists with varying ranges, and I like to think of Peeps as the longer ranged PPFLD hammers that get outclassed in shorter ranged fights.

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 21 January 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

The vanilla Peep isn't nearly as long as the ER, but I think that 540m can still be classified as the lower end of "long" range. I'd call 450m or so (same range as the AC/10 or vanilla LL) the area for "medium" range, as seen by Medium Range Missiles.

The ER Peep isn't exactly a sniper weapon either with its current velocity...Reducing its heat wouldn't impact its ability to poke people at such long ranges. Reduced heat is most beneficial in mid to short range prolonged fights.

In general, I kind of like the flavor of making lasers and PPCs have different purposes. Lasers so far are the reliable, spammable generalists with varying ranges, and I like to think of Peeps as the longer ranged PPFLD hammers that get outclassed in shorter ranged fights.

Which is why I support giving ERPPC velocity buff to allow it to be a sniper weapon, but giving it a minimum range so it will not be a good brawl weapon. Regular PPC minimum range should be removed entirely.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 January 2016 - 06:59 PM.