Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
This account was created in 2012. Your argument is invalid.
Thing is here, your account may have been created in 2012, but your forum profile says you've been here since 1/5/17. This must mean that you have never logged onto the forums directly until this year, about 2-3 weeks ago. The forum doesn't recognize you until you've logged onto it, and the first time you do it says that is your official join date.
Hence the confusion (and why I never really look at those dates too often). Still, none of us know when you actually did join, and all we have is either your word or your forum profile...
Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
Well.. let say it was unclear. It's like i was suggesting to bring Arrow IV Homing missile and you were explaining why it's not a good idea. No, i would like to see just cluster missiles.
Most of what I was saying there was "how could they introduce it into the game". Nothing more, but that is probably what lead to the confusion.
Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
These suggestions weren't intended as "first-then-then". They are intended to be implenmented at the same time and work in combination. I see now why you have put so much pressure on the ammo density but very little on other two.
I didn't write it as a "first-then-then". I wrote it as a "this-this-and this too", meaning at the same time. I don't find the proposal complete, and I don't see it working as a whole, or as separate pieces so far (besides maybe the AMS as a possibility, but I think it would need more consideration to how it might affect the game overall). Seen as you mention your process bellow, I'll address it there, instead of here.
Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
Actually the changes that i have suggested may have not as drastic of an impact on player's perception as you may think.
-Targeting changes: The whole process does not changes at all from the player's perspective. All the modules and mechanics are intended to work as before. The only difference is that LRM can keep their own, separate lock on a mech with radar deprivation even after it has vanished from players' view and therefore radar deprivation stops affecting missile tracking. It stops being an anti-LRM tool without losing all other benefits. This is necessary because this module brings a huge disparity on how LRM works in T1 and in T5. I guess other weapons would also stopped being effective against veterans if there was a module that intentionally or not halved incoming damage.
-AMS. Yes, it shouldn't be too effective but it shouldn't be a harmless firecracker pod either. LRM is a global weapon, so it needs a global countermeasure. It should have some effect even when there's 60 "presents" sent from across the map by multiple missile boats. It should be worth the investement especially if you had to remove a weapon or some armor to squeese it in a light mech. Besides, a player dows not know how many missiles were sent for him - 5 or 10, so the reduced effectiveness against LRM5 won't be noted as much as increased effectiveness against missile rain.
- LRM ammo count per ton: Not necessary "half". It might be 65, 68 or 80%. (numbers are arbitrary). Besides, LRM is a weapon that can strike without retaliation, so having less potential damage per ton is not that "unfair". It's a measure to keep LRM-boats in check. Remember that brawlers can't drop armor and pick more ammo hoping to deal more damage that way.
I'm not even clinging to this particular change and it can be skipped if LRM shall not become too powerful or a better alternative on how to limit LRM impact on gameplay is suggested.
- I don't see how missiles could continue to be locked (under any of the currently running mechanics or concepts) without the target being locked as well. Or are you suggesting that missiles that can lock start to become "fire and forget" to some extent? If this is the case, it removes more skills LRM users actually do use, and will move it closer to a skill-less weapon, as so many are so quick to already call them. (Mind, this is an "if this is your concept".)
- Presume that any change will be announced. And I might make mention that anytime there has ever been an announcement on LRM changes, the game seems to always have a temporary flood of LRM use as people check out the new mechanic. This normally, well, normalizes after a few days to a few weeks after the change, depending upon what was changed. So, any change to AMS may promote more AMS for a while, but being a change also to how LRMs get treated, it will also promote their experimentation as well. Thus, people will quickly figure out that LRM5s would, once again and still, be the best LRM launcher, especially if it can be boated. Sure, it helps protect more against large boated LRMs (once again, somehow), but it would still give LRM5s much more of a boost. And sure, it would give LRMs as a support weapon a boost too, but people would still gain more from boating the 5s, or just even more larger launchers than that.
- I wouldn't even consider changing LRM ammo count per ton as a balance point at this stage. That would be a clause if it seems out of balance from other changes, but more than likely you'd tweak the spread numbers, lock on mechanics or how AMS worked (again in this case) if any one piece seemed to make LRMs "too good to be true". First, we'd have to make them more normalized between all ranks of play (if that is the intention), and/or normalized between boated and support loadout options. If they seem to suddenly need less ammo (as in, people are taking less ammo per 5 tubes of launcher), than consider that damage potential is out of whack, and then adjust ammo count per ton. (I actually still highly doubt that these would be the results seen. But if it is...)
Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
Going forward i see that you have suggestions on how to improve LRM but what i was asking primarily is a suggestion on how to keep LRM in check if they start to be too powerful instead of reducing ammo density.
As I said above (but I'll just repeat here for formality and organization), I would adjust spread, lock on mechanics or (if AMS was altered) how AMS had an affect on LRMs, or even adjust how they tracked onto a target, or even make all LRMs stream out like the Clan LRMs currently. I'd possibly change a lot of things before I would touch ammo counts. Really the only time I would probably consider adjusting ammo count per ton would be if I noticed people started to take less tonnage of ammo per LRM tube count. If it remained 180 missiles per 5 tubes, than I'd leave it be. If people started to take 1.5 tons for 10 tubes (or etc as the launcher size grew) as an average, than I'd adjust LRM ammo count, to bring it back to 1 ton per 5 tubes (which seems to be a steady number). Even this could indicate that LRM users are just being destroyed sooner, thus needing less ammo as they don't run out before death. Or, it could even mean that LRMs are dealing more damage so that they need less ammo before all/most targets are dead.
Changing the ammo count could easily knock out LRMs as a support weapon, making it more prone to being a boated weapon because "if I need that much tonnage I might as well boat/not-use LRMs." Make taking it too heavy, and you'd starve out those few of us that seem to take a few smaller launchers as an actual support to our mechs other weapons.
Believe it or not, adding more ammo per ton may actually encourage the desired effect instead. That would either encourage more people to take some LRMs with them on their mech, or it will leave LRM boats with some extra tonnage (if they don't just pile on larger launchers of course) to place some serious back up weapons. Go to far though in this direction, and now LRM "boats with more guns" start to become too powerful, able to fight in a brawl and at range... (instead of being more focused in one over the other.)
This can literally go either way, depending upon how people react to it. I'd be very hesitant to adjust ammo count unless I noticed a huge shifting trend in the count to weapon ratio happening. There are many other things that can be adjusted instead...
Van Tuz, on 17 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:
You mean something like the picture on the page 6 of this thread? That's a very good rebalance and one i can get behind even in isolation.
Spread is much more tricky to balance than you may think it is. I see that a lot in different games and game discussions. People think that 2x spread is 2x worse but it's not. It's Pi*R2 so 2x spread means 4x area, 3x spread means 9x area. The second thing you should be aware of is the target's cross-section. I don't have exact numbers but i have a feeling that mech's cross-section grows faster than its armor points with the weight class increase. So an assault mech can take 5x more damage from a spread-based weapon compared to light mech while having only 3x more armor. That's why it is better to have missiles home in on specific parts rather than being a spreadshot weapon.
Yes, and no. It's an option I'd love to pursue and see how it would affect things. However, I'd be suspecting (as much as I like the concept) that it might actually increase LRM damage, making it from a "stripe the armor off all the mech" to "you just lost that component". Those would be 5 point wacks at a specific component, depending upon how tightly it tracks to those components. A single LRM20 would produce the affect of being hit by 4 AC5s at once... I would want to test this and see how it works. It could be good, could easily be too much...
A set spread (if all launchers had the same spread) provides more saturation bombardment. With an overall larger spread (as far as individual launcher, but not when boated) would mean larger mechs would probably take more damage all over (instead of mostly CT like the LRM5 spam) (they also have more armor) and smaller mechs would take less (being faster and smaller). It would break the smaller launchers being better in every way (refire rate, ammo consumption, lock loss risk, spread/hitting CT/killing), while letting the larger launchers (which weigh a lot) being worth the weight investment to taking them. This would probably discourage individual launchers, depending upon the launcher size. But, then we can possibly improve speed, tracking, etc. The larger spread would also be more likely to hit faster moving targets, meaning Tracking actually may be able to be tuned down some. (Without testing, I can't know the exact affects.)
It's a tough thing to consider, without any real way to test and see what becomes of it. I understand your scaling problem, as larger target means a spread weapon is more effective against them. But imagine seeking components on a smaller target, it would be even more detrimental to them. I mean, look at SSRMs. Deadly to light mechs, hardly a nuisance to larger mechs. I mean, even some Medium mechs can ignore a SSRM boat for a short while... But a light mech? Completely devastated after a single alpha most times.
Also, as a side note, larger mechs have more room. Thus, larger mechs can/should have the room for AMS units, where as smaller units tend not to have that type of room. I think having LRMs more effective against larger/slower targets could be mitigated by AMS and staying in a group together. Of course, depending upon how it's balanced out... Depending upon the changes... (As I said, I'd love to test it out more, if I could.)
MacClearly, on 18 January 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:
I actually like that you take the time to type out well thought out points. It at least makes me think and I am always open to the possibility of being wrong or change. I consider it a strength.
Yeah, but not everyone wants to come home, go to their notifications, and have to sit down for a week reading one of my novels of a post I put up sometimes.
To be honest, there is a reason I was sitting on the post above yours for so long. 1. Time it would take to respond. 2. Considering how I wanted to go about responding, as I don't want to sound rude or insult someone when that is not my intention.
I also feel I babble a lot... Sometimes repeating things without realizing it...