145 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

That's... actually what I was trying to say?

Adv. Decay increases a set time (in theory a percentage off the unmodified base decay).

Radar Dep changes the base decay to zero (modifies the base decay), but leaves what Adv. Decay grants.

Unless Adv. Decay doubled your decay (it doesn't and shouldn't), than it doesn't directly and evenly counter Radar Dep.

(Only saying this to confirm we are on the same page. Nothing more.)

AKA: If Base Decay is 2.5 seconds, and Adv Decay grants an additional 1.5 seconds, then Radar Dep decreases total decay by 2.5 seconds, than with Adv Decay on vs Radar Dep you'd have a total remaining decay of 1.5 seconds. (In theory.)

but it doesnt, base decay is actually 2.5-3 seconds, which you are correct in,
but Adv Decay gives +3.5sec lock time, Radar Dep reduced lock time by -3sec,
so Adv Decay actually wins out over Radar Dep in their respective uses,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 01 April 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[Tesunie]

Andi Nagasia, on 01 April 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

but it doesnt, base decay is actually 2.5-3 seconds, which you are correct in,
but Adv Decay gives +3.5sec lock time, Radar Dep reduced lock time by -3sec,
so Adv Decay actually wins out over Radar Dep in their respective uses,

I see that in game it says +3.5 decay, and I'm fairly certain base decay is 2.5 seconds. I will comment, I have never had a lock stay on a target for 6 seconds. So, I think it's saying it doesn't "add" 3.5 to decay, but makes it 3.5 seconds of decay (which would personally match what I see in game).

I think I will have to try testing this. TO THE TESTING GROUNDS! (Be back with results, but I wouldn't mind someone else testing and coming back to see if we get the same results. A... double check.)

[Tesunie]

I'd do this as an edit, but I want to make sure you read this. The quick description says "Hold Target +3.5 seconds". If, however, you hold your mouse over the module to get the long description, it says "Increases the amount of time a BattleMech is trackable when it leaves line of sight to 3.5 seconds".

Haven't tested it just yet... A few more moments for that.

Edit I have tested this twice in testing grounds, and each time came up with well under 5 seconds. I got "4" seconds several times in a row, but given a 0.5 second error (because I'm human), I believe it is 3.5 seconds.



Grammar stuff was edited.

Edited by Tesunie, 01 April 2017 - 12:45 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

@Tesunie,
ya i just had some weird Testing grounds tests my self,

First Test= Clan JR7-IIC-2, 1LRM5,
no Adv Target Decay = 2.0sec Lock Hold time(assume 0.5Sec margin of error)
with Adv Target Decay = 2.5sec Lock Hold time(assume 0.5Sec margin of error)

Second Test= IS LCT-3S, 1LRM5,
no Adv Target Decay = 3.0sec Lock Hold time(assume 0.5Sec margin of error)
with Adv Target Decay = 4.5sec Lock Hold time(assume 0.5Sec margin of error)

im confused as i have done this test 20 times just now,
i think Adv Target Decay may be broken, as i know it was working during my last set of tests,
(last tests were done with this Topic August 2016(Ultimate Lrm Spread Topic!)

we need more people to test this and give us their numbers,

[Tesunie]

Andi Nagasia, on 01 April 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

we need more people to test this and give us their numbers,

I only did it with the Huntsmen (because). I did it 4 times with my brother timing it, and 4 times with me timing it (to check for accuracy). Each time I got 4.11 seconds (or near enough) with Adv. Target Decay. Given that 0.5 second margin of error, it basically equals 3.5 seconds, what the module "says" it does (in the long form text when you hover your mouse over the module in question for a while).

I did not test IS mechs at all, but from my experience in live matches, it always seems to be 2.5 seconds (I have not timed this) without ATD and 3.5 seconds (limited testing on the training grounds, but it feels about right) with for all mechs. Of course, excluding when Radar Dep is involved, unto which it's more like "instant lost" and "about a second after I lost sight". I have not timed ATD with Radar Dep in any official capacity, just from what I observe in game is all.

[Lykaon]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

I guess I should also now post something ON TOPIC...

As far as a reduction in range (depending upon how much range), a velocity and/or spread buff would make LRMs better. However, as their most effective range is currently only 600m (for best effects), a decrease in range wouldn't actually be much of a nerf and more of a non-issue.

This isn't to say that LRMs shot at targets outside 600m is not viable, just that they are not normally effective at those ranges anyway.

So, unless you are nerfing LRM ranges beneath 600m, I don't think a range nerf would have much of an overall effect... However, I would like to mention that MRMs are incoming, and that LRMs are suppose to be "long" range. Right now, they are more like mid range missiles with the option of indirect fire, considering long ranges in this game are normally out to 800+m away...

I 100% agree that LRM effective damage dealing range is a matter of closer is better. However this is really only accounting for the effects of LRM damage. There are other tactical uses of LRMs that can be effective at extreme ranges even if the damage potential is drasticly reduced.

I will explain.

Say we have an enemy light mech that is skirting around behind your lines. They are like 900m out and you can grab a lock on them. The likelyhood that your volley will deal any serious damage is nill (because that light mech is probably not standing still) But,the missile launch warning and any hits at all make them feel vulnerable and above all noticed.

This will have an impact in their decision making process from that point on. They will likely altered their plans and you have now exerted some control on situation that otherwise (without the long range reach) you could not have.

Another example and a common one for PUG play. Your team has a slow assault that was left behind the main formation. An enemy skirmisher has engaged the assault mech and the friendly is well beyond the sight lines or reach of much of the team.
Under these circumstances it is not uncommon for LRM support to be the only available option for putting a scare in the skirmisher and make them rethink their attack. And as such the longer the reach the more utility LRMs have in this capacity.

What it comes down to is very often the value of the threat of damage is overlooked in favor of the level of damage that can be inflicted. To put it simply the enemy that gets the missile warning doesn't know you're 800m away all they know is it's time to find cover or get hit. This is applying pressure on the enemy's ability to move freely even if it's not the most effective damage delivery.

Reduction in range deminishes these unique properties of LRMs and further pigeon holes them into being a substandard weapon system that is overshadowed by pretty much anything else.

Any velocity increase to compensate for losing over a third of their range would need to be significant and on par with the weapons systems they would now be directly competing against. so a jump from 160mps to 900+ mps seems like it will be a difficult sell. (idealy I would suggest retaining the lower velocity for indirect fire and having the significant increased velocity for LOS direct fire)

And now we have to look at how will LRMs perform on a battlefield with MRMs and ATMs. This just adds several unknowns to the equation.








On a side note: The choice to alter LRM ranges to their "tabletop" values isn't one to be made in a vacuum. The design elements are very different for MWo than Battletech.

For example in table top play the number of Inner Sphere non artillery weapon systems (in level 1 play 3050 tech level) that out range LRMs is very limited.

AC2
Gauss
ER PPC

But in MWo missiles have a hard cap on range where they detonate upon reaching their max listed range while other weapon systems do not.

In MWo the following (I.S.) weapons out range LRMs currently

AC2
AC5
UAC5
LB10X
PPC
ER-PPC
Gauss
ER large laser

Now if we dropped the range to table top levels of 600m the following I.S. weapons out range LRMs

Ac2
Ac5
Ac10
Uac5
LB10X
Gauss rifle
Large laser
Large pulse laser
ER large laser
PPC
ER-PPC

Also a Medium laser or AC20 will only need to close by 60m to get range on LRMs.

Add in clan weapons and we get.

C ER Medium laser
C ER Large laser
C Large pulse laser
C ER-PPC
CAC2
CAC5
CAC10
CAC20
CLB2X
CLB5X
CLB10X
CLB20X
CUAC2
CUAC5
CUAC10
CUAC20


This will obviously have many effects that will be difficult to quantify without rigorous testing.

Edited by Lykaon, 01 April 2017 - 03:12 PM.

[Jep Jorgensson]

Lykaon, on 01 April 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

Quote.

In short, if we reduced LRM's to their TT ranges, then not only they would be out-ranged by even more weapons considered to be medium range (PPC, LBX 10, etc) but even some weapons considered to be short ranged as well. Good job bringing this to light.

This would most certainly throw the weapon balances out of whack if implemented to LRM's alone. This also brings us to my previous post. If PGI did this to LRM's, then in order to maintain the weapon balances, then they would have to do it to all of the weapons. Nobody wants that.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 01 April 2017 - 06:39 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jep Jorgensson, on 01 April 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

In short, if we reduced LRM's to their TT ranges, then not only they would be out-ranged by even more weapons considered to be medium range (PPC, LBX 10, etc) but even some weapons considered to be short ranged as well. Good job bringing this to light.

This would most certainly throw the weapon balances out of whack if implemented to LRM's alone. This also brings us to my previous post. If PGI did this to LRM's, then in order to maintain the weapon balances, then they would have to do it to all of the weapons. Nobody wants that.

im not really suggesting the range be reduced to 630m but 840m thats only 140m less,
but this would also come with better velocity which most agree would greatly help the system,
(also the skill tree thats set to come out in May is going to reduce LRM range to 900m so theirs that)

[Pixel Hunter]

Threat Doc, on 23 March 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

First, I cannot vote in your poll, as there are not enough options to work with... this is not a yes, no, I don't care answer; there's a good deal more to it than that. So, here's what I would propose...

All Warnings and Saves: The visual and audio warnings in the cockpit about incoming missiles and the Radar Deprivation module need to be gone from the game post-haste. When an individual disappears behind a structure or a rock or another 'Mech the lock is broken quickly thereafter, anyway, and it takes forever to regain a lock. LRMs are the ******* child of the MechWarrior Online universe when they should be the lead dog, period.

radar deprivation? oh right, you don't want this so you missles can act unlike any other weapon, target gets cover and you lose the ability to hit. RIIIIGHT...please. we all had to pay 6,000,000 c bils per mech to get LRM's to act like any other weapon system

[Khobai]

LRMs are LONG RANGE MISSILES

reducing their range makes no sense

why not just make them effective at long range? like theyre supposed to be.

[Andi Nagasia]

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

LRMs are LONG RANGE MISSILES

reducing their range makes no sense

why not just make them effective at long range? like theyre supposed to be.

i would support this as well, perhaps LRMs increasing Velocity over time?
starting at 100kph and increasing 25kph every 50m? so at 900m they would be going roughly 550kph,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 09 April 2017 - 07:33 PM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

With new MRM's I do wonder how LRM's will be balanced. Because currently MWO LRM's are usually most effective at medium ranges(400-500m). Any ideas? Myself I would like some splash damage on missing LRM's.

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 09 April 2017 - 08:11 PM.

[Tesunie]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 April 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

im not really suggesting the range be reduced to 630m but 840m thats only 140m less,
but this would also come with better velocity which most agree would greatly help the system,
(also the skill tree thats set to come out in May is going to reduce LRM range to 900m so theirs that)

Andi Nagasia, on 09 April 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

i would support this as well, perhaps LRMs increasing Velocity over time?
starting at 100kph and increasing 25kph every 50m? so at 900m they would be going roughly 550kph,

Technically speaking, if we want to go this path of thinking...

Most of the weapon ranges are taken from TT rules. Technically speaking, LRMs optimum ranges are 660m. Minimum ranges are 180m (last I knew). They technically can deal full damage within minimum ranges (through kinetic force or just normal explosion, depending upon rule sets as well as description of the weapon), but they (IS ones to be clear) shoot at an arc, making such close range shots unreliable (just like Gauss, AC2 and AC5 weapons have a minimum range penalty, which is due to them being calibrated more for long ranges). However, for game balance, I can understand the minimum ranges as they are now. A minimum range that reduces damage is more logical for a video game stance.

For long range, they have an optimum range of 660m. This should, by using the double range rules that are optional advanced rules for TT and the rules MW:O tends to run on, make LRM maximum range out to 1320m, twice normal ranges. As these are semi-guided missiles, I can understand some things for game balance, but we have other weapons that can shoot out that far. So could LRMs. (Not necessarily my suggestion. Just an observation.)

But, if we want LRMs to actually be effective out to their effective ranges, we would need a clear velocity boost from what is basically in the game. From there, past 660m, LRMs could actually start to slow their velocity down. Why? Because they start to lose speed due to lack of fuel. However, I believe the better choice would instead (or even also) be to reduce tracking strength to targets beyond 660m, making the missiles not only less likely to hit, but easier to dodge at longer ranges. You could even have a random change beyond 660m that some missiles may just fail and explode (like current missiles at maximum ranges), making it reduced damage like other weapons shooting outside optimum ranges, though this would be less likely to work if the missiles are also more inaccurate at longer ranges. (I might also mention, missiles moving fast at launch would also make them less accurate at closer ranges, as they hit their tracking points faster, and typically would not adjust fast enough. It's what I tend to see when shooting a light mech close to minimum ranges for IS, or within minimum with CLRMs.)


However, before we could actually touch that, we could use to adjust ECM first, which isn't suppose to counter LRMs as they currently do, and as ECM is now being Incorporated into game modes in an uncounterable form (Escort and the soon to be released new one), it really could be adjusted. To keep that brief here, we need to be able to get locks on visible ECMed targets, but I agree that ECM should provide some element of stealth, so a delay before one can acquire a lock would probably be best. Dash between cover, and you'll stay hidden. Stand out in the open, and people will be able to lock and lob missiles at you. (AMS is suppose to be the anti-missile system, not ECM.) ECM however should prevent TAG bonuses, NARC and also prevent target data gathering, a target designation (we can't see if it's target Alpha) nor would the lock be shareable (so you'd have to have line of sight yourself to a target under ECM to be able to get a lock and a missile lock after that). (I go into more depth here.) (Don't forget, Stealth armor is coming. Right now, ECM does Stealth Armor's effects already, why bother with Stealth Armor then?)

Now, I'll also add in that if Radar Deprivation subtracted the same exact amount of time that Adv. Target Decay granted, than those two are fine in the game. Otherwise, one of them would need an adjustment. Otherwise, they are not "direct counters" to each other. Radar Deprivation otherwise trumps ATD in performance.






As far as reducing LRM ranges to 900m, or even 840m, it would be a non-issue unless LRMs got some kind of massive buff to velocity. They already can't reach that far as an average currently. Only way that would happen is if LRMs seriously got a huge buff...


My final thought at the moment is, how would a progressive increase in velocity as LRMs got farther actually help? If it still takes it 3 seconds to get to 600m, and 5+ seconds to get to maximum range... You are only adjusting them to be worse at close range by giving more time to counter them and even worse/unchanged at long range due to the amount of time the enemy would still have to counter them. I never understood this concept, and it doesn't make any sense to me as a game mechanic suggestion as well as also a realistic consideration. Why would the missiles gain speed as they move farther out? What causes them to be slow at launch? Are these now multi-stage rockets, with a slower first stage, and then a faster second stage?

[Khobai]

Quote

i would support this as well, perhaps LRMs increasing Velocity over time?
starting at 100kph and increasing 25kph every 50m? so at 900m they would be going roughly 550kph,

This. Making them accelerate gradually makes them better at long range without making them better at short or medium range.

I also think if you significantly increase LRM velocity then indirect LRMs would have to be limited to targets that are TAGGED or NARCED. I feel thats the best way way to balance indirect fire with the faster missile speed, and it also helps promote teamplay which is a good thing.

That and LRMs should do more damage per missile but also have a longer cooldown. That way theyre less of a suppressive weapon and it would help keep crap like LRM5 chainfire spam in check.

Also ECM needs to not grant stealth anymore. The only effect it should have on missiles is doubling lock-on time. Hopefully now that stealth armor is being added, ECM will no longer grant stealth. Only stealth armor should grant stealth.

And AMS obviously would need a decent buff to contend with the faster missiles.

Lastly I feel Artemis needs a buff because its pretty weak for its tonnage/crit consumption. I think Artemis should give both SRMs and direct fired LRMs a critical hit bonus like the targeting computer does for ballistic and beam weapons. Artemis would still be crappy but something is better than nothing...

So yeah that list of changes would not only help LRMs become more useful but would also help ATMs not be completely dead on arrival too...

Edited by Khobai, 09 April 2017 - 09:41 PM.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

This. Making them accelerate gradually makes them better at long range without making them better at short or medium range.

As I posted above, I still don't get how this would help LRMs. I guess it would depend upon how it was done, but it would have to make it so LRMs get to long range faster than current to be viable as a suggestion.

I guess I just would need more data here, with a comparison to current numbers.

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

But I also think if you significantly increase LRM velocity then indirect LRMs would have to be limited to targets that are TAGGED or NARCED. I feel thats the best way way to balance indirect fire with the faster missile speed, and it also helps promote teamplay which is a good thing.

I'm sorry, but as someone who uses LRMs fairly often, I believe this would kill LRMs. Once MRMs come out, indirect fire is very likely going to be one of the few things LRMs will have going for it. I'm also not keen on having LRM players depend upon TAG (which would have to be kept on target) or NARC to get indirect locks. I think it wouldn't promote teamplay (think QP queues too here) very much, as many players, particularly competitive players, would rather take a ML or an SRM6 (or 4 with Artemis) instead and "deal 'real' damage" themselves.

Also recall, we have players who currently refuse to get locks if they know LRMs are on their side (they aren't afraid to say it either), because "I don't want you taking my kill, you lazy LuRMer". I joke not here...

However, it would certainly already go along with something many new players already think. They normally think one of two things, either every enemy they see is shared (and spotted) instead of the one they have locked, and/or they already believe they need to have TAG or NARC to spot for LRMs, so they don't even bother locking. I've had to address each of these issues in the New Player Help forum over the years... and in game...


I'd much rather alter spread for direct or indirect fire, making LRMs spread damage more indirectly (unless NARC and/or TAG is involved) and less when fired with direct line of sight. There are most aspects of LRMs which can be adjusted for balance. Just something to consider.

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

Also ECM needs to not grant stealth anymore. The only effect it should have on missiles is doubling lock-on time. Hopefully now that stealth armor is being added, ECM will no longer grant stealth. Only stealth armor should grant stealth.

I've always felt that no locks AND increased lock on times for missile was a huge double penalty to LRMs. It really didn't feel fair.

ECM needs to affect information gathered, not prevent a weapon system from working. Even SSRMs should at least be able to function against ECM, though I don't mind a bit of a hindrance. With Stealth armor on the way, I agree that something with ECM is going to have to change (and should have long ago in my opinion).

I have other ideas for ECM (mentioned above), but I wouldn't be opposed to this concept as well.

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

And AMS obviously would need a decent buff to contend with the faster missiles.

Of course. Part of my proposal (in another thread linked in above post) is that AMS should be buffed by however much LRM velocity is. It only makes sense that the two should remain equal to each other, right? At least if they are seen as being on even terms currently.

Khobai, on 09 April 2017 - 09:26 PM, said:

Lastly I feel Artemis needs a buff because its pretty weak for its tonnage/crit consumption. I think Artemis should give both SRMs and direct fired LRMs a critical hit bonus like the targeting computer does for ballistic and beam weapons. Artemis would still be crappy but something is better than nothing...

I'm not so keen on this concept, but at the same given time there is some aspects I can see and agree with. I'll be honest, unless I'm taking SSRMs, I don't normally bother with Artemis. Very few of my LRM mechs use it, but I also seem to play LRMs in a rather unique style. They are used for carpet bombing for me, where they will either open holes in armor for my direct fire weapons, or my direct fire weapons will open holes in armor for my missiles to spread and damage/destroy when my opponents try to shield that component... The extra spread is often more helpful in those situations than more focused. (Though, I do understand Artemis can be very helpful as well.)




(I must apologize if things sound odd or something. It's late and I should be in bed...)

[sneeking]

I like it

Sounds like a buff

Unfortunately nerf hammer only knows how to nerf....

[Mister Glitchdragon]

It's an interesting idea. I'd want to know exactly how much velocity buff we were talking about before I voted "yes."

[Threat Doc]

Tesunie and Khobai, you both have decent points, and I think carefully combined implementation and limitations would do the job.

[Ultimax]

I would only support a velocity increase for direct fire LRMs, never for Indirect Fire.

It is already a cancer in this game, that makes for some of the most awful gameplay for both sides of the field.


This won't do any of your stated goals to get LRM mechs to the "front lines" & share armor when they can safely lob from 800+ meters.

[Vanguard319]

I would be in favor of a reduction in range to something closer to TT values. You're not going to hit a target at 1km anyway unless said target is NARC'd, TAGged or is AFK, all are very unlikely under a realistic scenario. It would also force those rear-line LRM boats to move with their team and provide actual fire support instead of never moving, and wasting ammo on targets they can never hope to hit, either because the target got to cover, or they lose lock while their volley is on it's way.