OmniFail, on 20 February 2018 - 05:47 PM, said:
Modern torpedoes are more like underwater cruise missiles. They are now IDF. But most subs are now underwater missile launchers. Why use a torpedo when you can use a cruise missile from 1000 clicks out with your satellite GPS lock.
I was just making a cheeky comment, not too serious, about the torpedoes. Should've made a smiley.
I would note that trying to prosecute naval targets by satellite alone is still not quite feasible. Hitting stationary stuff (bases and such) with GPS works fine, but for mobile naval targets, while the satellite might give you a rough idea, to actually hit it with a missile you need something else lighting it up. Hence, still the need for other units to gather info and find stuff.
Quote
On the concept of presenting multiple targets. A good team will call targets based on threat level. I am not saying that the team should not move as a group. After all having your buddies help you focus targets down gives a higher chance of success. But the idea that the team is sharing armor is a fallacy. If the reds are skilled they are gonna call "**** X target" and the only way your gonna share armor is if your standing close enough to put yourself between your teammate and the near instantaneous direct fire alpha strikes.
First of all, if your teammate is getting lit up by multiple enemies and he has no cover to get behind, he screwed up his positioning, and you are by no means obligated to go body-block for him, because it would mean like-wise positioning yourself in a very very bad spot.
The idea of sharing armor means to take turns exposing from cover, with the more hurt teammates changing angles or timing of their peeks to coincide with a teammate's peek. Simple example, you and a buddy are jamming the same corner. You corner it more-or-less together at the same time, and he catches fire that weakens his armor. Your weapons cycle ready and on the next peek, you go first (you can even corner
wide, to slice the pie and limit your own exposure), and your buddy's cue to corner is right after the enemy fires, so he can get in his own salvo without getting opened up.
In that scenario, the enemy can't call a focus target because neither of you is giving them the chance.
Refusing to share armor in that scenario would be blatantly using your teammate as bait/meat-shield, and only peeking right after he peeks first. Instead of two mechs at 70% health and full weapons, you end up with 1 mech at 40% health and the other at 100% health, and the guy at 40% health is probably 1-shot.
Note that you don't necessarily have to be in the same spot or jamming the same corner to share armor. Being in different locations can also work, too, and a friendly grabbing attention 30 degrees to the left and drawing some fire will open up a chance for another teammate on the right to peek with less risk.
Like, if I am ever in a game with you, and we're on the same team, and you call for help or I see that your health% is lower than mine, I have no problem stepping in front of a shell/laser/missile for you. At the end of the day, your continued survival increases the chances of the team winning.
Unless someone's flamering you. In which case I'm not stepping in front of that, and instead I run away screaming.
Quote
Now we are getting off topic.
I have not seen one suggestion that really fixes LRMs in this tread that makes sense. Many of them are even based in the bias mentality of IDF is a ***** tactic. I don't really think it matters what we think at this point because PGI has taken a stance of bias because the whining of noobs that have the IDF is a ***** tactic mentality because with their self proclaimed skills are not really smart enough to carry no skill, haxxors shooting though walls Jesus boxes counters or using skilled counters of breaking line of sight and cover.
I agree that IDF for LRMs should be kept in the game, and I also want to see that LRMs should be made a viable weapon in various modes (both direct-fire and IDF), and at different skill levels.
Let's ignore all the people calling for LRMs to be nerfed even more, or for IDF to be removed. Games like CounterStrike have a form of IDF: Grenades, Smokes, Flashes, etc. Some of the best and most dope moments in that game come from amazing throws. I think there's no point in engaging with people who simply want LRMs nerfed even more, and no point in engaging with people who want LRM IDF removed. Their end desire is just too incompatible, and there's probably no way to come to any consensus there; debate with them is a waste of time.
Quote
So while I am not going to suggest fixes at this time because most of the ones I have explored are always somewhat flawed. But I am gonna discuss what is wrong based on my 7,000,000+ LRMs luanched experiance.
I also want to mention that even I believe that LRM's should not match direct fire weapons. But they are seriously under powered.
I'd actually like direct-fired LRMs to trade well with direct-fire weapons. If only PGI could change LRM mechanics so that the shooter can influence where the LRMs go. But that requires a deeper mechanic change that I doubt will happen.
The way I envision it, the shooter can launch and hold lock, and try to stutter-step/turn while the flight is in the air, to spread incoming damage, and hold his reticule on the enemy mech's body part that he wants to hit. There'd still be a spread, but it could be tuned. If he reticule slips off the enemy mech (not the target box, but the actual mech), the spread widens and the missiles track similar as they do now, not focusing toward a hitbox.
Or, the shooter can launch and cut the missiles loose on their own guidance, but then the spread grows even more, and the tracking worsens. The advantage is that it allows the shooter to immediately maneuver defensively, or re-enter cover.
Or, the shooter can even launch his missiles ballistically without a lock at all, firing at where he believes the enemy will be, having the missiles pick up the target on their own guidance (unless the target isn't in that area when the missiles arrive).
Quote
First ECM and Radar Derp are perfectly balanced. So we don't need to really think about them at this time.
This leaves a complex binary problem with LRMs.
The spread on LRM5's and LRM10's is nice and feels like it has the right balance for effectiveness. Unfortunately at the smaller tube counts like LRM5's and LRM10's AMS is a Jesus Box. This is especially true of the Clan LRM's because of their streaming nature. You really need to launch like 30 missiles to have any effect on an enemy mech with minimal AMS cover. The recent buffs to the heat in LRM5's and the ghost heat when firing more than two only allows it to fire in groups of ten at a time. Any more and the heat is especially punishing. This is why LRM5's are pretty much extinct. LRM10s on the other hand are limited to two at a time and to reach the thirty tube count have to eat some ghost heat and are now mostly useless.
With the larger launchers the tube counts are nice and decently balanced against the "current" normal amounts of AMS. Unfortunately the spread is to large and has become quite ineffective at causing any significant damage in a reasonable amount of time to any components. It just spreads the damage to much.
I agree that the ghost heat limit for LRM's should definitely be increased. And for the smaller Clan launchers (LRM5/LRM10) they could reduce the amount of time it takes to ripple them out (similar to the idea of giving smaller UACs a lower shell-count). That may also have the knock-on effect of making them get past AMS more effectively.
Another thing I'm not sure of is how effective AMS is when firing at missiles targeted at your own mech, versus AMS firing at missiles targeted at your ally's mech. If the AMS is equally as effective in both cases, it makes LRMs harder to balance. If LRMs start to become more effective, then more people equip AMS, and pooling their AMS together can neutralize LRMs. If it's not already the case, then another change which can make LRM performance more stable/reliable (and thus easier to balance) would be to make it so that AMS firing at missiles not targeting you would be significantly less effective than AMS firing at missiles flying directly at you. E.g.: AMS firing at missiles not targeting you are only killing missiles at 30% the normal rate. What numbers to use exactly would be.... up for debate/theory-crafting/testing.
Quote
It's not the velocity, damage or cool down. All these things are fine.
The small launchers are useless because of heat and ghost heat penalties that they face to field enough tubes at once vs. AMS
The large launchers are rendered ineffective because of their spread.
Furthermore for those DF only crowd remember that PGI nerfed Artemis because put two much damage on one component. So much for the incentive to get your own locks with this tonnage tax which only equated over time to about a two percent accuracy increase.
According to the recent pod cast all these thing have been done by design to protect the noobs from killing each other. While the skilled "LRMs and IDF are ****" leet players put out a proposed community patch that suggest heat buffs across all launchers.
Tis foolishness and bias towards one of the game mechanics that separates MWO form COD style games.
Missile spread when direct-fired really ought to be better, balanced by wider spread in IDF mode. Last time I checked, the LRM spread on larger launchers was so bad that if you went into Testing Grounds and fired at the stationary Atlas, some missiles would actually miss. Is that still the case?
DISCLAIMER: the following is a random brainstorm idea:
Another random idea to perhaps distinguish LRMs (and other missiles) might be to perhaps make them cause
actual reticule shake (instead of the cosmetic screen shake we have now). That is, to make it so that when hit by LRMs, the blasts cause your reticule to shake, throwing off your aim.
You could fire in one big volley to penetrate AMS but not "juggle" the opponent, or you can chain-fire your LRMs which makes more missiles get gobbled by AMS but you'd be "juggling" the opponent's aim.
It would provide an interesting utility for it that the other weapon types lack.
6
