135 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

This. Is. WRONG.
EVERY. FREAKING. TIME. IT. APPEARS.

Copied from over 18 months ago.

i see, ok so i was wrong, thats ok, im willing to admit that,
this info you have posted i didnt know, now i do thank you,

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

C3 only affects targeting bonus/penalty.

so if C3 only affects targeting bonus/penalty then would it affect the Spread of the Missiles,
if so than is C3 just another system like Artimus but for Indirect fire?(just wondering)

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Narc:

TL;DR: C3 gives no benefit, and is not required. Narc as implemented is pretty much how it is supposed to be.

i agree, and im no proposing that NARC change from its current use,
and i never said that C3 did anything to NARC if it seemed so im sorry that want my Intent,

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Not to mention that C3 isn't just a 1T/1Crit investment, at least on mech in each lance needs a 5T/5Crit MASTER or all the slave computers are DEAD WEIGHT.

yes i under stand only the C3 Slave is(1Crit 1Ton) and the C3 Master is(5Crit 5Ton)
i was just saying that if this was added they should use (1Crit 1Ton) as a base,
(as they have with TC implementation and MASC Implementation)

Lugin, on 19 February 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

... I really should just copy certain rulebook sections into plaintext just so I can quickly paste them in for when certain statements crop up.

and i thank you for posting it not only for my self but for others who may have thought as i did,
i proposed that Indirect fire be removed, as i was unknowingly working off of inaccurate information,
thank you for digging this up and proving your point in a constructive manor,


i still think LRMs need some love,
perhaps the whole Radar & Targeting System needs a rework but for now ill focus on LRMs,
but since i changed the topic Poll yesterday it seems many have changed their votes,
-
at the time of this post, 70% of Voters would like to see LRMs gain a Buff when Targets are in LOS,
with this i would advocate for a decrease in spread, as such a change would not effect hit rate of AMS,
(Personally i would like to see a -30% spread with LRMs when Target is in LOS)
Edit- Spelling,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 19 February 2017 - 04:22 PM.

[Lugin]

In all fairness, the bit regarding NARC was more intrinsic to the thread I had originally posted it in.

The main benefit of a C3 network has to do with weapon's range bands, and the added gunnery penalties as you move from short -> med -> long.

Say for instance you are in a C3 networked mech shooting at a target 20 hex (600m) with a gauss rifle (2/7/15/22 (min 2hex, short to 7, med to 15, long to 22(max)) .
That's in the long range band, which nets a +4 to the to-hit number.
Now, if there were a networked unit closer to the target, say 5 hex from it, with LOS, you would instead use that friendly's distance for to-hit modifier, in this case 0 due to being in the short range band.
Assuming the network connection isn't disrupted by ECM.

This is a massive simplification, leaving out other modifiers, but illustrates what C3 does in tabletop, which is purely related to chance-to-hit, and only really applies to LOS attacks, as indirect fire uses the indirect fire rules under LRMs on Total Warfare p111.

Edited by Lugin, 19 February 2017 - 05:22 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I wonder if they can even do variable flight paths, or if they would run into the LB ammo switching problem.

[Snowbluff]

Don't mechs in MWO kind of have C3 already?

Koniving, on 19 February 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

You failed to mention why it was a bad idea in the first place.

Because Indirect fire adds strategic value. Removing it is bad.
Because SSRM and (later SLRM, which we suspect will get in with new tech) would be just better versions of the cLRM.
Because you're arguing on a tabletop game made in the 80's, expecting the videogame loosely based on it has to work the same way.

Edited by Snowbluff, 19 February 2017 - 10:14 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Lol, if you were to remove indirect fire from lurms the population would drop drastically as the really bad lurmers would quit the game.

[Snowbluff]

Carl Vickers, on 19 February 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

Lol, if you were to remove indirect fire from lurms the population would drop drastically as the really bad lurmers would quit the game.

... dammit, I am torn.

[Carl Vickers]

Probably Not, on 19 February 2017 - 10:31 PM, said:

What I still don't quite understand is why potatoes are drawn to LRMs as a favored weapon system in the first place. They're not even particularly fun to use.

Some people equate fun with easy.

[Weeny Machine]

Lykaon, on 19 February 2017 - 06:08 AM, said:

You do know that in MWo LRM indirect fire also REQUIRES a spotter?

In order to fire indirectly someone/thing must "see" the intended target.

That's what I said.

[Koniving]

Snowbluff, on 19 February 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

1) Don't mechs in MWO kind of have C3 already?

4) Because Indirect fire adds strategic value. Removing it is bad.
3) Because SSRM and (later SLRM, which we suspect will get in with new tech) would be just better versions of the cLRM.
2) Because you're arguing on a tabletop game made in the 80's, expecting the videogame loosely based on it has to work the same way.

1) Yes and no. Yes, far as the sensor system works.
No, far as the if Scout A is next to target B, then shooter C can use his AC/20 from 1,000 meters away with the same accuracy as if 270 meters away or less and do full damage aspect.

2) I'm making the argument of real-time lore based on 30+ years of revisions and balance and applying it to a real time video game loosely based on some quack's interpretation of the tabletop game... and telling you how literally ANY game attempting to do this would work under Perfect Imbalance, Asymmetrical Design, Good Counter Play, and Incomparables. In tabletop, to fire indirectly you need to set up a spotter, have him 'spot' for ten seconds before you can fire indirectly on the target...etc.

My pitch pushed the lore of how the missile launchers work in the physical realm of real time with details that are impossible to account for or bother with in the tabletop game. The 180 meter minimum accuracy range in the 80's version of the lore is due to firing missiles into the air. Therefore it shouldn't exist in this game as "No damage, herp derp!" It should exist as "HOLY CRAP THOSE MISSILES WILL BLOT OUT THE ******* SUN!!!" as shown in the spoiler with a GIF of closed beta LRMs, where they went STRAIGHT UP... and came... STRAIGHT DOWN on enemies, exactly as the lore is written. (In tabletop none of that would matter as it is all just fluff and dice.) Note that it is also called upon that LRMs have reduced course correction ability to make them easier to evade..even if they are a lot faster.

The Clan side would not have that ability, or any indirect fire ability without TAG or NARC. Even then, their missiles will not have high arcs. In exchange, they get to fire more or less straight... Exactly like MW2 and MW3. They don't get MRMs but they can use LRMs like MRMs. They can't flush you out of cover while staying outside of your weapons range, but the IS can flush them out of cover while they camp outside of the IS weapons range. With all the range advantages the Clans already have, indirect fire without the use of NARC or TAG-totting scouts is unnecessary. It also distinguishes the Clans apart from the Inner Sphere in terms of mechanics, gameplay, tactics and most importantly player mentality.

The IS would never be able to use LRMs the same way that the Clans can, much like the Clans will never be able to use LRMs in the same way the IS can. But, through MRMs for the IS and through TAG/NARC for the Clans...they can do something similar to each other without homogenizing them into copies of each other.

3) Clan Streak LRMs are "better", it is true. They also weigh twice as much. 2 LRM-20s, or 1 Streak LRM-20? Huh, tough decision. As you can imagine, PGI will apply their usual Streak nerf by making them slower to reload compared to standard LRMs.

4) Who said I was removing indirect fire? If anything, I am increasing the strategic value of multiple assets for both sides.

• Spotters/scouts benefit from having more value placed on their roles.
  
• Long range snipers benefit on the IS side because IS LRMs can flush enemies out of hiding holes. While it is true most Clan weapons can engage IS snipers at sniping range, an exposed enemy is still one that will perish quickly.
  
• Long range snipers can benefit on the Clan side because Clan LRMs can flush enemies INTO hiding holes. Any IS 'Mechs hiding in cover from LRMs... are likely out of range to be able to return fire, allowing Clan snipers to pick them off easily.
  
• Clan brawlers benefit for the same reason the Clan snipers do. Enemy IS 'Mechs hiding from LRM / sniper suppression tend to be fairly still and easy to flank.
  
• IS brawlers benefit because Clan LRMs won't be able to completely destroy them without ever having seen the enemy or having gotten into range to fight. Thus the IS brawlers can shuffle from cover to cover whenever opportunity strikes and get close enough to do something.
  
• LRM boats are less of a "bane" that frustrates and upsets players on both sides and more of a strategic option that allows players both on the using and receiving end to enjoy themselves. After all those on the receiving end can now think about their options and use the mechanics of the LRMs to devise a counter strategy to protect itself or so that the LRM user can be hunted down.
  
• Artemis receives a significant boost in value. No longer a gimmick that only matters on the first lock.

Edited by Koniving, 19 February 2017 - 11:04 PM.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

A boost to artemis and tag effects could be useful, with leaving other portions of LRMs untouched.

[PhoenixFire55]

LRMs are fine as is which is proven by Polar where they are as effective as every other LR weapon. We need to buff the devs so they can make more maps which will all be different instead of "balanced". Old maps were different, flavoured. New maps are all the same, Polar is in many ways an exception. There should be lots of maps like it with little to no cover, and lots of directly opposite, maps with no open areas at all.

P.S. Needless to say there also should be an ability to choose a loadout for your mech after the map you play on was selected. But then again its PGI we are talking about, so ...

Their Way^TM. (Minimally Viable^TM)

[Snazzy Dragon]

Snowbluff, on 18 February 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

LRMs shouldn't be in the game without IDF. They are pointless otherwise.

Mechs sitting at 900 meters with 4 lrm 5s missing 90% of their missiles with 90% of their armor intact are pointless too.

[FuhNuGi]

My 2 cents...

Decrease spread for LOS for the mech firing, with applicable target decay. No matter what info a spotter is feeding you, actual LOS target lock ensures more accurate fire, even with Real World indirect fire.

This would serve to not further diminish the role of fire support mechs, while at the same time encourage people that use this weapon system in general to engage targets at shorter distances by means of the "rewarding carrot" being slightly higher damage output.

Those that know me know that i LRM. I feel I LRM well... I try to educate other LRM users to not waste shots from 800m on a scrappy lock from some alpha lance cookie running for the sake of his paint job. I try to get LRM guys up to "share armor".

INDIRECT FIRE ROCKS!!!

Got a problem? It may be because it is difficult to defend against if you can't figure out how you are getting targeted... this leads to frustration and excessive saline generation (that is salt kiddies).

I encourage LRM metahaters to go run an LRM mech and enjoy the strengths and weaknesses built into the system

Some mechs were (by lore) designed to be missile carriers in a support role... for mechs of this sort (MDD-Vulture, SHC-B as 2 clan examples), quirks should be added to reflect the core design value for that mech variant.

LRMs are debuffed in so many ways already, they do not need to come down more for the sake of balance.

[The6thMessenger]

I'd rather make them Fire-Forget as long as there is lock. No retained lock needed or staring down -- but lock always have to be reacquired every fire.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 February 2017 - 03:32 PM.

[Galenit]

Only ams should give the missilewarning,
this would do more for balancing lrms then most other suggestions,
in both ways.

Edited by Galenit, 20 February 2017 - 04:11 PM.

[AncientRaig]

Why not just go with what more or less every other mechwarrior game has done and make LRMs require LOS to lock, leave the travel arc alone, and remove the "lose tracking if target lock is lost" nonsense that's a good 80% of the reason why LRMs are so bad in MWO? Make the tracking somewhat worse without target lock if the concept of useful LRMs seems 2OP4U.

[Snowbluff]

@koniving
1) so Sensor sharing confirmed
2) this is basically a non argument. LRMs already behave differently between the factions. Your interpretation requiring narcs and tags is not anymore realistic. 10 second rounds have already been compress, see the fire rates on weapons, and that has been applied thusly to sensor and lock times.

3) well with the way cLRM are now, and with the proposed nerf, no one would use them. Like, even fewer people than now.
4) no it's a stupid nerf to clans. See point 1. Narcs can help, tags can help, but requiring scouts to carry it in pugs or in groups is just cruel. It offends the modern missile concept of a sensor shooter, where sharing information and firing solutions with technology has made using missiles easier.

Bonus points for wall of text and flopping around the numbered points. :/
As you can see, I have an issue removing functionality of a piece of equipment that is already garbage. Of course, there are many ways to skin a cat. These changes might be good with map changes (like how LRMs are good on Polar highlands or how SC2 nerfed Stalkers by changing the maps with higher cliffs).

Snazzy Dragon, on 20 February 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Mechs sitting at 900 meters with 4 lrm 5s missing 90% of their missiles with 90% of their armor intact are pointless too.

We can't fix potatoes, Snazzy.

Edited by Snowbluff, 20 February 2017 - 05:31 PM.

[Lugin]

Koniving, on 19 February 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

1) Yes and no. Yes, far as the sensor system works.
No, far as the if Scout A is next to target B, then shooter C can use his AC/20 from 1,000 meters away with the same accuracy as if 270 meters away or less and do full damage aspect.

Actually, no, not even the sensors.
The way sensors and target sharing work in MWO reflects the TT LRM Indirect Fire rules, ECM BS aside.
Specifically, that a spotter can only spot one target at a time, but every friendly LRM unit can ride that target data.

C3 would be more like perma UAV (minus beating ECM) on any enemy in LOS, but only viewable by units inside the network.
Problem then becomes whether locks could ride that targeting data. Shouldn't be able to, should only able to ride the spotter's actively locked target. But how to communicate that information... maybe a round lock for C3 spotted targets instead of the square (own and shared active locks) we have now?

And C3 doesn't affect damage falloff, just odds of hitting. (Note the bit in my C3 rules post following Variable Damage Weapons.)

Edited by Lugin, 20 February 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

remember this isnt a Nerf Topic,
this topic has 2-3 points,

1) removed indirect fire then buff LRMs to compensate,

2) keep indirect fire, but buff LOS LRMs spread making them better with LOS,

3) LRMs are fine as they are,

[Weeny Machine]

A weapon system with

a. easy accessible auto-lock
b. supresses movement to a degree where 2-3 missiles boats simply forces mindless peek-a-boo gameplay

is simply mind boggling in a shooter.