136 replies to this topic

[Kroete]

Some things about lrms and your ideas:

Until at least half of all mechs in the matches use ams, lrms are underpowered and need a buff. (There are counters, if most people dont use them, lrms are no threat and are to weak.)
If heavy lrms users in tier 1 can only get around 40 accuracy with them, lrms need a buff.
If compplayers and fw-units dont use lrms, they need a buff.

You are trying to balance by lowtier, but these 3 arguments show clearly they need a buff no nerf.

Edited by Kroete, 20 October 2017 - 10:45 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Kroete, on 20 October 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

Some things about lrms and your ideas:

Until at least half of all mechs in the matches use ams, lrms are underpowered and need a buff. (There are counters, if most people dont use them, lrms are no threat and are to weak.)
If heavy lrms users in tier 1 can only get around 40 accuracy with them, lrms need a buff.
If compplayers and fw-units dont use lrms, they need a buff.

You are trying to balance by lowtier, but these 3 arguments show clearly they need a buff no nerf.

I'm trying to rework so PGI could balance by high tier. Because not balancing by potato doesn't seem to be an option with how PGI does things. Because again, any buff on the weapon system with regards to the high tier would send the LRMs at the lower tier even more "OP" at the lower tiers.

Do you know how big a normalization of LRM15 and 20s' spread to 4 is? Same spread of the LRM10s and LRM5s, add the fact that now there's 1.5 damage/missile.

Do you know how big is the velocity buff? 240m/s, it's literally 50% bonus from 160m/s.

The ability to send missiles straight like a direct-fire weapon than locked into arc, that allows it use within confined spaces.

What about the increased reliability by not having to sustain missile lock, but only target lock? -- that means you don't need to stare into your target to land LRMs, you just need a target lock then you're golden. That alo means you can twist away every time your LRMs are in cooldown, while still retaining homing.

This results in an incredibly reliable LRM volleys that will increase hit-chance, aside from hitting a lot harder and doing more efficient damage. For supposedly an LRM enthusiast, i don't understand why wouldn't you value those changes. No it's not a ******* nerf, it's a rework, and a buff.

The rework would let LRMs land in just over 2.0833s with 500m, to compare right now with 160m/s it will take 2.5s to reach 400m.


http://www.1728.org/circsect.htm

Now, assuming that the arc is modeled after a circle, we can assume that a 90-degree launch would produce a trajectory half of the circumference of the circle, with the diameter which takes form of the distance from the locked target, which is 600m by example. That also means the 90 degree launch would be that the height is at 1/2 of the distance, or 300m by example, and would produce 942.5m of arc length, 3.92708 seconds to land, and extra 342.5m or 1.42708s of flight time. For comparison, the old 160m/s velocity takes the about same time to reach 600m which is 3.75s.

If it were 30 degrees launch, using the diameter above we can surmise that the height would be only 1/3s of just 100m. Using the calculator, we can assume that the arc would result to 643.5 meters in length -- of extra 43.5 meters, would take 2.68125s to land or + 0.18125s extra travel time. Simmilarly a 60 degree launch would have 200 meter height, 764.4m, or extra 162.4 meters, or 3.185s to land, or extra 0.685s travel time.

Do i really have to reiterate my model over and over?



UPDATE;
- Removed Breakaway Distance mechanic, because i felt that increased travel time is already too much of a burden.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 October 2017 - 02:37 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

I support the idea of locked arc fire mode for LRM rather than the direct fire method already in game. Just add something on the HUD that roughly indicates the distance they will travel depending on how high or low you are aiming when firing.

If that were the case I would even promote a greater spread for that path mode, as with skill they could be easily utilised as bonus area control in blindfiring over hills and the like.

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 21 October 2017 - 02:34 AM, said:

I support the idea of locked arc fire mode for LRM rather than the direct fire method already in game. Just add something on the HUD that roughly indicates the distance they will travel depending on how high or low you are aiming when firing.

If that were the case I would even promote a greater spread for that path mode, as with skill they could be easily utilised as bonus area control in blindfiring over hills and the like.

I don't understand that.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 October 2017 - 02:40 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

The6thMessenger, on 21 October 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

Okay, how do you control the height of the arc if you have to retain your reticle to the target to maintain missile lock, so you could launch one?

In that locked arc fire mode in most cases you wouldn't have a target to lock on, just a general idea of where the enemies are, hence the blind firing. Target locking would be the most optimal usage of them, and would remain functionally the same.

In this way they could be used similarly to (albeit low powered) grenades in flushing out targets, with the spread getting larger at greater distances. The arc path itself could even be quite steep/acute to allow for usage against a lot of cover types.

[Shifty McSwift]

The6thMessenger, on 21 October 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

I don't understand that.

Picture something along those lines, but with the actual steepness of the angles much higher as they are missiles, not actual grenades/artillery.

The hud representation, ends up looking something to this degree;


The actual height range doesn't necessarily have to be that large (i.e. you wouldn't be looking that high or low to max/min fire anyway).

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 21 October 2017 - 02:54 AM.

[Deathwish1]

Lrm's are crap. If your using them then clearly you dont get it and I'm not gonna bother.

[The6thMessenger]

Deathwish1, on 21 October 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Lrm's are crap. If your using them then clearly you dont get it and I'm not gonna bother.

Oh no, by all means, please, keep your d*ck out.

Shifty McSwift, on 21 October 2017 - 02:44 AM, said:

In that locked arc fire mode in most cases you wouldn't have a target to lock on, just a general idea of where the enemies are, hence the blind firing. Target locking would be the most optimal usage of them, and would remain functionally the same.

In this way they could be used similarly to (albeit low powered) grenades in flushing out targets, with the spread getting larger at greater distances. The arc path itself could even be quite steep/acute to allow for usage against a lot of cover types.

Shifty McSwift, on 21 October 2017 - 02:54 AM, said:

Picture something along those lines, but with the actual steepness of the angles much higher as they are missiles, not actual grenades/artillery.

The hud representation, ends up looking something to this degree;


The actual height range doesn't necessarily have to be that large (i.e. you wouldn't be looking that high or low to max/min fire anyway).

You mean you can indirect-fire it without homing like a howitzer? Considering the low-speed, you're not gonna hit people with that, dumb-firing is inherently unfeasible but to extreme circumstances. Dumb-fire with LOS is already niche, it's a feature that's not that used frequently or with great result. Such change would have so little impact.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 21 October 2017 - 04:36 AM.

[Wolfways]

Deathwish1, on 21 October 2017 - 03:19 AM, said:

Lrm's are crap. If your using them then clearly you dont get it and I'm not gonna bother.

LRM's are not crap...well they are but mostly not because of the weapon. They do work as intended, as a force multiplier. They just don't have a place in pgi's tiny arena game that isn't indirect-fire.
It's not the weapon that needs changed, it's pgi's maps. As far as I'm concerned, as long as there's masses of cover everywhere (i.e. nearly all maps) then no buff would be adequate enough to make LRM's a decent weapon...except vastly increasing missile speed which would look ridiculous.

Currently, if you're getting killed by LRM's alone then you screwed up hugely and it's your fault.
If you're being hit by LRM's while getting killed by other weapons...well that's like complaining about bees stinging you while you're getting ripped to pieces by a bear.

The only viable changes imo are:
Low Tiers? Learn to play.
Higher Tiers? Make better maps.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 21 October 2017 - 04:31 AM, said:

You mean you can indirect-fire it without homing like a howitzer? Considering the low-speed, you're not gonna hit people with that, dumb-firing is inherently unfeasible but to extreme circumstances. Dumb-fire with LOS is already niche, it's a feature that's not that used frequently or with great result. Such change would have so little impact.

I believe he means retaining your lock mechanic but with an LRM aiming HUD element that indicates the range to target and the degree of arc you are currently targeted in at. That way similarly to learning how to lead a target for direct fire projectiles you will learn the best range and arc potentials depending on the variables you observe.

So if the HUD had a vertical scale range indicator (to show you the degree of arc you are "dialed" in on currently) a pilot could get a good estimate of where the volley will be traversing through during the ballistic arc when fired.

Anyone here who has fired a grenade launcher gets the idea...but that is probably not a lot of people. Maybe an archery sight is a better metaphor?


The issue is your mechanic adds in a third dimention to the estimate of lead distance.

When firing a direct fire projectile we as players mostly rely on out sense of the horizontal plane. Essentially how far to the left or right of a target do I shoot to hit them at X range with Y velocity based on the targets current speed and heading.

The LRM mechanics you propose has the added element of guessing not only a lead distance to optimize the volley accuracy but also an arcing trajectory height neccissary to accuratley hit the target.

So we need to retain attention to the "horizontal" plane while also incorperating a vertical plane estimate.

( I placed horizontal in quotes because in actuallity right and left movement would be just as important as forward and backward movement since the ballistic arc of missiles would be targeting a point rather than traversing past an intercept point. So in actual use the mechanics you propose require horizontal vertical and distance estimates to optimize effects)

Although the guess will be aided somewhat by the homing mechanic it's still twice the guess the work and therefore twice the demand of the players attentions.

A strong visual aid will reduce the attention strain a bit and make the whole system more user friendly while retaining the intended complexity.

Edited by Lykaon, 21 October 2017 - 07:34 AM.

[Lykaon]

The6thMessenger, on 20 October 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

No it's not building a padded cell, it's changing the game so that those who doesn't get it aren't exploited that easy. Think of it as creating another lower class so that the even less skilled are placed at their proper environment to grow. They will still encounter indirect fire, it's not impossible, just is a bit higher up the skill environment.

I think it may be possible that you miss the whole point of skill tiers as a mechanic.

The function of the skill tiers is not the preservation of ineptitude it's fostering an enviorment where advances in technique can occur with a reasonable level of pressure to inspire the advances.

We have a bunch of nublets...fresh to the game like we all were at one point. We can all imagine nublet status because we were all nublets once.

So these newbies should not be thrown into the shark tank with old grizzled vets and why is that? because the grizzled vets are better players and would make such quick work of a nublet that they wouldn't know what hit them. There would be such a disparity in skill that the new guy wouldn't have time to process any mistakes leading to their defeat. It would to them look like they peeked out to begin a match and ...BAM! dead instantly.

There is a dramaticly reduced capacity for learning with wide skill gaps.

And what creates the skill gaps?

Evolved counter-play techniques.

So the lowest tiers are where the least counter-play occurs but it is also where counter-play is suppose to be learned.

Now if you dramaticly reduce the need for counter-play by designing mechanics that do not require counter-play to gain advances (ie. LRMS that are designed to be less effective vs non counter-play targets) then the players level out of the tier without the skill set to handle players they may encounter further up the tier ladder.

The issue is LRM counter-play has overlap potential that applies to several facets of mech warfare. Learning to remain close to cover to evade LRms means you are habitually using cover. Learning to use defilade to avoid being targeted by LRMs means you learn how to sneak around in general. Learning that radar depravation has a use vs LRMs also helps in enhancing general stealthiness etc.

And since LRMs are the easiest weapons to use counter-play on I think of them in the low tiers as the padded club. You still get hit you still get knocked around but it takes a lot of hits to make you want to quit (LRMs kill nothing quickly compared to other options).

So by removing the pressures to learn counter-play we have all the nublets learning to finger paint when they need to be learning how to use counter-play tactics to compete with higher skill players.

or is this just to Nietzchean? I believe it's the adversity that breeds skills.

Edited by Lykaon, 21 October 2017 - 08:11 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

I mean I don't know how else to explain it... I can't really make it any clearer.

The relative usefulness of it would mostly be gauged by the speed and damage sure, but to say it would be useless or the same as the direct fire mode is plain wrong.

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 21 October 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

I mean I don't know how else to explain it... I can't really make it any clearer.

The relative usefulness of it would mostly be gauged by the speed and damage sure, but to say it would be useless or the same as the direct fire mode is plain wrong.

I didn't say it would be useless, i said it would have little impact -- considering the narrow band of usefulness it provides. It's basically trivial to add.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 07:11 AM, said:

The issue is your mechanic adds in a third dimention to the estimate of lead distance.

When firing a direct fire projectile we as players mostly rely on out sense of the horizontal plane. Essentially how far to the left or right of a target do I shoot to hit them at X range with Y velocity based on the targets current speed and heading.

The LRM mechanics you propose has the added element of guessing not only a lead distance to optimize the volley accuracy but also an arcing trajectory height neccissary to accuratley hit the target.

So we need to retain attention to the "horizontal" plane while also incorperating a vertical plane estimate.

( I placed horizontal in quotes because in actuallity right and left movement would be just as important as forward and backward movement since the ballistic arc of missiles would be targeting a point rather than traversing past an intercept point. So in actual use the mechanics you propose require horizontal vertical and distance estimates to optimize effects)

The thing is that, players are able to extrapolate. I mean we don't really calculate everything when we lead by AC/PPC bolts -- and if we can do that, it's not like it's impossible to just get the proper angle just by experience.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

I think it may be possible that you miss the whole point of skill tiers as a mechanic.

No, i didn't.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

Spoiler

The function of the skill tiers is not the preservation of ineptitude it's fostering an enviorment where advances in technique can occur with a reasonable level of pressure to inspire the advances.

We have a bunch of nublets...fresh to the game like we all were at one point. We can all imagine nublet status because we were all nublets once.

So these newbies should not be thrown into the shark tank with old grizzled vets and why is that? because the grizzled vets are better players and would make such quick work of a nublet that they wouldn't know what hit them. There would be such a disparity in skill that the new guy wouldn't have time to process any mistakes leading to their defeat. It would to them look like they peeked out to begin a match and ...BAM! dead instantly.

There is a dramaticly reduced capacity for learning with wide skill gaps.

And what creates the skill gaps?

Evolved counter-play techniques.

So the lowest tiers are where the least counter-play occurs but it is also where counter-play is suppose to be learned.

Now if you dramaticly reduce the need for counter-play by designing mechanics that do not require counter-play to gain advances (ie. LRMS that are designed to be less effective vs non counter-play targets) then the players level out of the tier without the skill set to handle players they may encounter further up the tier ladder.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

The issue is LRM counter-play has overlap potential that applies to several facets of mech warfare. Learning to remain close to cover to evade LRms means you are habitually using cover. Learning to use defilade to avoid being targeted by LRMs means you learn how to sneak around in general. Learning that radar depravation has a use vs LRMs also helps in enhancing general stealthiness etc.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

So by removing the pressures to learn counter-play we have all the nublets learning to finger paint when they need to be learning how to use counter-play tactics to compete with higher skill players.

No, they don't level out of the tier without the skills necessary. Rather they encounter the indirect fire WHEN they have better skills. Being in the open still opens them up to direct fire, and would produce a reasonable amount of punishment considering that they are still bad at positioning.

They wouldn't have advanced so much up the Tier to encounter indirect-fire that will prompt them to better improve their skills -- that's when they are used to the direct-fire, that's when they wouldn't feel that it's too hard or demanding to just instantly adjust to the indirect-fire (as before) because adjusting to it isn't a big leap from adjusting to indirect fire compared to last time. Why is that hard to understand?



You say that you want "reasonable pressure to aspire advances" -- yes right now LRMs can do that. But it can't be buffed with respect to the high tier, because it will make the LRMs "OP" at the lower levels, and would now produce an unreasonable pressure to aspire advances.

Lykaon, on 21 October 2017 - 08:00 AM, said:

And since LRMs are the easiest weapons to use counter-play on I think of them in the low tiers as the padded club. You still get hit you still get knocked around but it takes a lot of hits to make you want to quit (LRMs kill nothing quickly compared to other options).

Kind of the problem that translates to the higher levels. I mean you practically just said that LRMs are just for knocking around, -- basically weak damage that's not easy to kill, that contributes why it's not as used on the top, why it's regarded as a bad weapon.

And we can't buff it because PGI is including the low-tier for consideration.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 October 2017 - 04:13 AM.

[Wolfways]

Maybe the real question should be "Pgi, do you want LRM's to be more viable?"

Let's face it, in order to keep as many players as possible pgi have always had a "barely" approach to the game.
Lore is barely adhered to.
LRM's are barely viable.
Balance is barely maintained...sometimes.
Maps are barely big enough.
Etc...

Honestly I think the answer would be "They're in, we like them, they're done."
Either that or "They need a nerf but how much can we nerf them by so they're still barely viable?"

[The6thMessenger]

Wolfways, on 21 October 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

Maybe the real question should be "Pgi, do you want LRM's to be more viable?"

...

That's exactly the question is. The only concern is how to achieve it.

If they (PGI) don't want it viable -- well that settles it. All i'm doing is asking the crowd their opinion about a particular way to do it.

[Vellron2005]

Again..

LRMs are fine.. they took a bit of a hit with the recent arc and artemis nerf.. but they are still fine..

NO NEED for buffs, nerfs OR reworks..

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 23 October 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

Again..

LRMs are fine.. they took a bit of a hit with the recent arc and artemis nerf.. but they are still fine..

NO NEED for buffs, nerfs OR reworks..

"Fine" as in you just don't want PGI to spite you, never mind the difficulties it has. Just as you define Bullying as basically just people flaunting their success cause you're being hurt by other people's high score.

If you're not interested of discussing like the others, then please get out of the thread. You're just loitering and spamming the same message over and over. You just posting in it would just keep it alive after all.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 October 2017 - 04:14 AM.