Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:
can't say I have ever seen him reply to a PM, tbh. 
Fair enough. One hopes they make lrms more viable somehow... Maybe one day i won't feel bad with them instead of more srms :/
9
Thank You Archer: For Highlighting So Magnificently The Inherent Flaws In The Lrm System.
Started by Bishop Steiner, Mar 16 2016 02:47 PM
365 replies to this topic
#361
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,049 posts
Member
Posted 27 May 2016 - 06:37 PM
Fair enough. One hopes they make lrms more viable somehow... Maybe one day i won't feel bad with them instead of more srms :/
#362
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 11,152 posts
Member
- LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 27 May 2016 - 07:29 PM
What's sad is that there are fixes that are the proverbial "change this number in the XML file" that would do wonders.
Spread is just a number. Velocity is another. Two second tweaks. Reload is the same way- just a number in the database. So is damage.
There are basic improvements- normalized spread, better velocity, potential tradeoffs like slower and/or same-for-all-launchers reload time for added damage per missile - that require nothing more than changing a few numbers.
It keeps not happening.
Spread is just a number. Velocity is another. Two second tweaks. Reload is the same way- just a number in the database. So is damage.
There are basic improvements- normalized spread, better velocity, potential tradeoffs like slower and/or same-for-all-launchers reload time for added damage per missile - that require nothing more than changing a few numbers.
It keeps not happening.
#363
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,220 posts
Member
- LocationOntario, Canada
Posted 28 May 2016 - 09:11 AM
To my mind tightening up the spread is too simplistic and creates or exacerbates a problem demonstrated by the hit charts posted by Bishop on March 16.
Namely, they do severe concentrated damage on Assaults and wide bodied Mechs, yet the lights and small mediums would require just as many missiles to disable them in a pure missile fight due to their smaller profile and ability to spread missile fire.
NO. Standardizing spread is a poor idea.
What is required is a Circle of Probability based on a value assigned to each Mech separately.
For example, a mech is 6 meters wide. 50% of the missiles arriving at the mech would land in a circle 3 or 3.5 meters in diameter centered on the Mech in question. The remaining would land outside of that circle in an area not to exceed the 6 meter width of the mech. This would guarantee that some missiles would travel between arms and legs and blank spaces effectively missing but that 50% or more would be landing roughly centrally instead of all concentrating on the center torso of an assault and spreading everywhere on a light/med.
This should not be a daunting task.
It would have the added bonus of differentiating Mechs in that some wide bodied mechs would be more vulnerable from the front but a smart twist would reduce damage on a narrow side, yet some which are narrow frontally would be more vulnerable if they were struck on their long sides.
My thoughts on my fav weapon system.
Namely, they do severe concentrated damage on Assaults and wide bodied Mechs, yet the lights and small mediums would require just as many missiles to disable them in a pure missile fight due to their smaller profile and ability to spread missile fire.
NO. Standardizing spread is a poor idea.
What is required is a Circle of Probability based on a value assigned to each Mech separately.
For example, a mech is 6 meters wide. 50% of the missiles arriving at the mech would land in a circle 3 or 3.5 meters in diameter centered on the Mech in question. The remaining would land outside of that circle in an area not to exceed the 6 meter width of the mech. This would guarantee that some missiles would travel between arms and legs and blank spaces effectively missing but that 50% or more would be landing roughly centrally instead of all concentrating on the center torso of an assault and spreading everywhere on a light/med.
This should not be a daunting task.
It would have the added bonus of differentiating Mechs in that some wide bodied mechs would be more vulnerable from the front but a smart twist would reduce damage on a narrow side, yet some which are narrow frontally would be more vulnerable if they were struck on their long sides.
My thoughts on my fav weapon system.
#364
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 4,259 posts
Member
Posted 28 May 2016 - 11:15 AM
Bishop Steiner, on 27 May 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:
So maybe to "clarify" my thoughts as of now (mind you there are changes I would love to make, but realistically know that they won't)
1) Normalize All Launchers to LRM10 Spread, including the LRM5
2) Bring the Cooldown Closer together, but not identical.
3) Perhaps give smaller racks slightly shorter lock times
4) With Artemis, add 100 m/s velocity and tighten all size Launcher Spread to LRM5 level
5) Indirect fire without aid of NARC or TAG all Launchers use LRM15 or 20 spread to reflect general inaccuracy of unaided indirect fire
6) LoS LRM Launch in flatter trajectory, Indirect Fire in Rainbow Trajectory, and lose any Artemis Bonus unless target is actively TAG'd or NARC'd.
Would enhance the Effectiveness of LRMs in general, while punishing BADs in sloppy LRMAssaults who expect people to hold locks for them, and also enhance usefulness of Legit Spotters, to some degree.
1) Normalize All Launchers to LRM10 Spread, including the LRM5
2) Bring the Cooldown Closer together, but not identical.
3) Perhaps give smaller racks slightly shorter lock times
4) With Artemis, add 100 m/s velocity and tighten all size Launcher Spread to LRM5 level
5) Indirect fire without aid of NARC or TAG all Launchers use LRM15 or 20 spread to reflect general inaccuracy of unaided indirect fire
6) LoS LRM Launch in flatter trajectory, Indirect Fire in Rainbow Trajectory, and lose any Artemis Bonus unless target is actively TAG'd or NARC'd.
Would enhance the Effectiveness of LRMs in general, while punishing BADs in sloppy LRMAssaults who expect people to hold locks for them, and also enhance usefulness of Legit Spotters, to some degree.
In 140 characters or less, please?
#365
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 11,152 posts
Member
- LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 28 May 2016 - 11:38 AM
Gorgo7, on 28 May 2016 - 09:11 AM, said:
To my mind tightening up the spread is too simplistic and creates or exacerbates a problem demonstrated by the hit charts posted by Bishop on March 16.
Namely, they do severe concentrated damage on Assaults and wide bodied Mechs, yet the lights and small mediums would require just as many missiles to disable them in a pure missile fight due to their smaller profile and ability to spread missile fire.
Namely, they do severe concentrated damage on Assaults and wide bodied Mechs, yet the lights and small mediums would require just as many missiles to disable them in a pure missile fight due to their smaller profile and ability to spread missile fire.
Even an assault can twist damage from LRMs, especially given the warning time and current velocities. Heck, I was getting rained on in my Orion by a pair of IS LRM5 boats the other day and while I was barely functional, it was almost all RA/RT damage with a few missiles getting through to the CT. I'd soaked most of the damage away from where they'd normally have hit because LOL, torso twist OP.
And LRM 5's have clustering that's tighter than what I'd suggest normalizing LRMs to (that is, LRM 10 spread for everyone). Tightening larger launchers to LRM-10 levels means they stop losing missiles on direct hits on stationary targets, which is what they do now.
#366
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,220 posts
Member
- LocationOntario, Canada
Posted 28 May 2016 - 02:53 PM
wanderer,
as you noted I did mention that twisting is of course what any experienced player would do. It still doesn't mitigate the high concentration and max damage ability on the large mechs while min damage on small mechs. This makes all Large mechs missile targets by default and small ones less worthwhile.
A Firestarter targeted by a pair of LRM20's should be very concerned and those LRM20's should really wreak face on a 35 ton mech.
Simply adjusting the Spread is too simplistic and comes with it's own, new, problems.
Again I think a better solution is to design a Circle Of Probability based on the width of the mech being targeted.
This first. Then tweaking, then speed or lock-time or whatever.
G7
as you noted I did mention that twisting is of course what any experienced player would do. It still doesn't mitigate the high concentration and max damage ability on the large mechs while min damage on small mechs. This makes all Large mechs missile targets by default and small ones less worthwhile.
A Firestarter targeted by a pair of LRM20's should be very concerned and those LRM20's should really wreak face on a 35 ton mech.
Simply adjusting the Spread is too simplistic and comes with it's own, new, problems.
Again I think a better solution is to design a Circle Of Probability based on the width of the mech being targeted.
This first. Then tweaking, then speed or lock-time or whatever.
G7
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
