54 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Posted this in the PTS feedback section as well (but, come on... who reads that section. GD is where the forums are at)

While the main focus of the energy draw system is on direct fire alpha... it makes an already bad issue even worse.

LRM5s are the king of the indirect weapons in terms of weight, efficiency, dps, accuracy... pretty much everything.
A role that should have been carried out by LRM20s and LRM15s

Currently you can fire 3 LRM5s with no consequence... with energy draw you can fire 8 of them with no consequence:

Meanwhile You can only fire 2 LRM20s or LRM15s which are heavy, ammo wasting, have massive cooldowns and are highly inaccurate.

here is a comparison:
8x LRM5s at 16 tons


2xLRM20 at 20 tons



I think the solution is to normalize spread across all launchers of all sizes (LRM10 levels) and introduce a new mechanic like this:




I know it may sound harsh to some of you.. but please take a look at how LRM20 would be if it had LRM5 level spread:
8xLRM5s fired with LRM20 cooldown to simulate 2xLRM20 with small spread:


As you can see, even if you reduce LRM20 spread to LRM5 levels you get:
8xLRM5 at 16 tons and 8 crits killing an atlas in around 30 secs
2xLRM20 at 20 tons and 10 crits killing the same atlas in around 50 secs

Seems pretty fair to me.

What do you think?

Edited by Navid A1, 20 August 2016 - 10:48 AM.

[process]

I think a combination of the current spread for no LOS, and your proposed spread for LOS would certainly help LRMs not feel so binary, so long as they don't turn into the old CT-seeking SSRMs. I've also advocated for lowered missile trajectory with LOS.

I think LRM spread in general needs a rework, as there hasn't been a good reason to take anything beyond Artemis + LRM 15 in a long time.

Edited by process, 21 August 2016 - 12:48 PM.

[Sader325]

Normalize spread to 5's not 10's.

[Lily from animove]

same on clanside, the streamfire of the lrm 20's is worse than the one of lrm 5s which emans its now all about lrm 5's on the high M counting mechs. Given you really wanna use lrm's

BUT PGi could actually simply adjust the heatvalues of the launchers to correct that discrepancy.

[Navid A1]

Sader325, on 19 August 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

Normalize spread to 5's not 10's.

Agreed... went a bit conservative there... to avoid being flamed!

[Juodas Varnas]

I would also normalize the cooldown between different sized launchers.

I really don't see a reason why should 4 LRM5 launchers have higher DPS, with higher accuracy at lower tonnage and less crit-slots (and also more resistant to critical hits) than the LRM20.
It's beyond ridiculous.

Edited by Juodas Varnas, 19 August 2016 - 06:11 AM.

[Hit the Deck]

Normalising all LRMs spread to LRM 5 could be a good idea. I think PGI tried to adopt the TT mechanics (spread is calculated per 5 missiles) but it just make bigger LRMs bad in MWO.

As for the worsening DPS as you get bigger, I have no idea currently. The issue is that you try to reward 'Mechs which have a lot of missile hardpoints without making them too powerful compared to those which only have one or two (or three).

[Sader325]

Raw video from PTS where we ran some LRM5 builds.

https://www.twitch.t...r325/v/84483073

Sound is partially muted, but sound doesn't really matter. Just watch the missiles and how they work.

Youtube video will be uploaded fully in a couple minutes, so just use the twitch link.

[Navid A1]

You know what is funny?

PGI will respond by annihilating LRM5s... they wont fix 20s and 15s

such is they way of PGI.

[El Bandito]

Yeah, that LRM5 loophole needs to be closed, without further obsoleting LRMs.

[Mystere]

Navid A1, on 19 August 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:

I think the solution is to normalize spread across all launchers of all sizes (LRM10 levels) and introduce a new mechanic like this:

Spoiler

What do you think?

Random! Gasp! <choking> Gasp!

On a more serious note, direct fire should be centered on the point of aim while indirect fire should be at center of mass. Yes, the former means we should be able to target the cockpit.

Edited by Mystere, 19 August 2016 - 06:59 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Nice illustrations!
So, it's kind of turning LRM’s into Streaks with it’s random indirect hit locations? Hmm….
I dunno what’s better: have each individual missile pick a random location (current streaks), or have all the missiles pick the same random location (proposed LRM change).

This change doesn’t really make LRM20’s any better in my opinion…

I think such a nerf would kill a lot of LRM boats in general. There’s just simply no reason to use LRM’s if the indirect missiles are all going to hit an arm, and since the arm is so small, about 80% of them miss the mech.

It once again encourages the use of multiple silos so that your huge volley of an LRM20 with a long cooldown doesn’t go for an arm or leg and miss. With 4 LRM5’s you have a better chance of your missiles spreading out enough for at least hit the target. But, it really depends on the chance game at that point, and how certain components are weighted in the dice roll…

Is 5% chance to hit the arms, legs, and head, then 25% chance to hit either torso too much weigh in the torso area for a LRM20 volley? How does it compare with (x4) LRM5’s? Will LRM10’s or 15’s become the most preferred and balanced LRM silo? If so, how is it possible that they be fixed?


Going back to how the streaks work, I think would be a much better solution. Per missile. I also think that we should guarantee that x amount of missiles for larger volleys will hit if a lock is sustained. Doesn’t all have to be the CT, but they need to hit. Then the next step, x amount of missiles work how they do now. They “try” to hit, and each will be aiming for a component. Even if the mech is running at 150KPH x amount of missiles will hit the ground. The situation of Direct and Indirect will affect the amount of missiles guaranteed to hit.

Guarantees for:
LRM 5’s: DIRECT=0, INDIRECT=0
LRM 10’s: DIRECT=2, INDIRECT=0
LRM 15’s: DIRECT=5, INDIRECT=2
LRM 20’s: DIRECT=10, INDIRECT=5

This ensures that volleys are not completely wasted, while the remainder of the missiles operate as usual.
The spreads and hit location of the current missiles will remain the same as they do now.

But, there’s a tonne of unknowns with that as well. Such as, how does TAG and Artemis affect these values? Should they? Etc..

Anyways, this is all food for thought. Either way, there should be a reason to CHOOSE between LRM's. I really don't want to see LRMx better than LRMy. The problem is though, their effectiveness's turn out to be completely situational. And it makes it hard to balance that.

Mystere, on 19 August 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

Random! Gasp! <choking> Gasp!

On a more serious note, direct fire should be centered on the point of aim while indirect fire should be at center of mass. Yes, the former means we should be able to target the cockpit.

Point of aiming would be nice too. We need that for streaks as well...

[Steve Pryde]

Maybe I get flamed but what do you think, fire&forget mechanic by line of sight to the target? Lock on, fire and no need to hold the target.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 19 August 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[Navid A1]

Mystere, on 19 August 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

Random! Gasp! <choking> Gasp!

On a more serious note, direct fire should be centered on the point of aim while indirect fire should be at center of mass. Yes, the former means we should be able to target the cockpit.

just an initial tought.

The current spread is kinda random itself. I was thinking a random point of focus with no LOS makes more sense and in line with indirect fore and target position delay being transmitted by an ally.

Direct fire being centered on the component you are pointing at makes sense. But this is more about spread... rather than focus point.

MoonUnitBeta, on 19 August 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

Nice illustrations!
So, it's kind of turning LRM’s into Streaks with it’s random indirect hit locations? Hmm….
I dunno what’s better: have each individual missile pick a random location (current streaks), or have all the missiles pick the same random location (proposed LRM change).

This change doesn’t really make LRM20’s any better in my opinion…

Not a component...
A point inside the big circle... your tight missile pack can miss completely if the point happens to be between legs.

Maybe a better solution is out there. for indirect balancing. I'm eager to discuss

MoonUnitBeta, on 19 August 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

Anyways, this is all food for thought. Either way, there should be a reason to CHOOSE between LRM's. I really don't want to see LRMx better than LRMy. The problem is though, their effectiveness's turn out to be completely situational. And it makes it hard to balance that.

Agreed.

Edited by Navid A1, 19 August 2016 - 07:09 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Navid A1, on 19 August 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:

Posted this in the PTS feedback section as well (but, come on... who reads that section. GD is where the forums are at)

While the main focus of the energy draw system is on direct fire alpha... it makes an already bad issue even worse.

LRM5s are the king of the indirect weapons in terms of weight, efficiency, dps, accuracy... pretty much everything.
A role that should have been carried out by LRM20s and LRM15s

Currently you can fire 3 LRM5s with no consequence... with energy draw you can fire 8 of them with no consequence:

Meanwhile You can only fire 2 LRM20s or LRM15s which are heavy, ammo wasting, have massive cooldowns and are highly inaccurate.

here is a comparison:
8x LRM5s at 16 tons


2xLRM20 at 20 tons



I think the solution is to normalize spread across all launchers of all sizes (LRM10 levels) and introduce a new mechanic like this:

Spoiler

What do you think?

Well picked up, I was so involved in testing brawler and extreme weapon builds I completely over looked LRM's

Yes this system does make large launcher worse,

The large launchers do need their circles reduced, not sure P.G.I will spend out to develop a grouping for direct, and indirect, though it would be the best path to take.

[AlphaToaster]

Energy draw is actually a decent balancing mechanic for high alphas. The mechanic will work well with missiles so there's a strong case we don't need CD to be different across the launchers. PGI can let the added weight and slot requirements be the balacing factor and give mechs with 1 and 2 missile hardpoints a chance to compete.


/space magic on

I've always thought the reloading mechanism was more like the way a bowling alley resets pins, instead of a single feed system. A LRM/20 taking longer to fire/reload never made much sense. I can't explain why the LRM 20 is that much heavier than a 5, if every ton is accounted for, that would mean where the LRM5 has 1 reloading rack, the 20 would have 4. They should have the same CD if the weight/tube ratio is constant.

/space magic off

[Navid A1]

AlphaToaster, on 19 August 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Energy draw is actually a decent balancing mechanic for high alphas. The mechanic will work well with missiles so there's a strong case we don't need CD to be different across the launchers. PGI can let the added weight and slot requirements be the balacing factor and give mechs with 1 and 2 missile hardpoints a chance to compete.


/space magic on

I've always thought the reloading mechanism was more like the way a bowling alley resets pins, instead of a single feed system. A LRM/20 taking longer to fire/reload never made much sense. I can't explain why the LRM 20 is that much heavier than a 5, if every ton is accounted for, that would mean where the LRM5 has 1 reloading rack, the 20 would have 4. They should have the same CD if the weight/tube ratio is constant.

/space magic off

Actually longer cooldowns are ok, if they choose to normalize the spread.
The spread is what makes larger racks garbage.

example with the same cool downs across the board:
4xLRM5s: 8 tons - 4 crits - deadly accurate
1xLRM20: 10 tons - 5 crits - highly inaccurate

I would go for 5s every time... in case I do not have enough hardpoints, i would not even bother with LRMs


Yet, with normalized spread and different cooldowns, suddenly LRM20s and 15s become meaningful when you want indirect fire but the mech does not have 5+ missile hardpoints
that is how it should be.

[Novakaine]

Haven't got on the PTS yet, but I always thought the larger the laumcher the longer the cool down or reload.
Also multiple launchers should have a cooldown commensurate to their numbers.
Also watching 12 out 20 lrms for a launcher is absolutely agonizing.

[Yosharian]

lmao

[Navid A1]

It took 64 LRM5 salvos to kill a fully armored (stock) atlas.
Same number for LRM20 was 28 salvos.

Let us imagine that LRMs have the same spread equal to LRM5's. Now, it will take 64/4 = 16 salvos for an LRM20 to kill the same atlas.
Now lets bring in the cooldowns. LRM5 has 3.74 cooldown in PTS, and LRM 20 has 6.33 cool down
Lets imagine a mech has 4 LRM5s and another mech has 1 LRM20:
The mech with 4 LRM5s will kill the atlas in 16 salvos of LRM alphas which is 56 seconds
The mech with LRM20 (lrm5 spread) will kill the atlas in 16 salvos.. but this time in 95 seconds

Considering that an LRM20 is a 10 ton weapon (compared to 8 tons for quad LRM5), same spread with current cooldowns would be a fair trade. Certainly nothing to be freaked out about.