97 replies to this topic

[Tickdoff Tank]

This is a really good idea. I especially like that you have come up with a solution that hurts the boating of the SSRMs without totally nerfing the mechs that mount 1-3 of them. It is an elegant suggestion and I hope the devs take a good look at it.

I do have a couple questions:

1. What is the current lock on time?
2. Exactly how much of an increase to the lock on time would be best?
3. Would it be better to have an exponential increase or a linear increase?
ie. base lock on time 1 second for 1 SSRM, +0.5 for 2 SSRMs, +1.5 for 3, +3.0 for 3 and so on, that would mean 3 SSRMs would have a lock on time of 1.0+0.5+1.5+3.0= 6 seconds (exponential increase)

or
1 second base, +0.5 seconds per launcher past 1. So 2 launchers would be 1.5 lockon, 6 would be 3.5 seconds.

I am just thinking out loud here, I would love to see other suggestions/numbers on this.

[CocoaJin]

I like it.

[Quad Ace]

Dear PGI,

This is one of the few threads on these forums in which people are actually coming up with good ideas. The NERFIT/DONTNERFIT crowd is not here, only people trying to find a reasonable solution.

Please read these ideas and truly examine the possibilities.

Thank you.

[Czardread]

Voidsinger, i really hope you have already mailed PGI about your solution, IT'S THE REAL FRICKIN' DEAL, DUDE.

already mailed a proposition to PGi and added your solution as one of then, don't worry, gave you the due credits. but wouldn't hurt to reinforce.

[Czardread]

one other alternative i proposed was that you would need to do a lock on for each ssrm to be fired. you can fire without then all locking on, but you only retain the lock if all the locks are on, otherwise you lose the lock you just fired.

how about it guys?

[Ragor]

Voted for option #1 'love the idea of the OP'

[Czardread]

Chou Senwan, on 25 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

I would love it if they explored this idea.

i also liked the idea you proposed in another thread about the streaks about gyros compensating for constant shake over time.

lets keep the ideas flowing people, this is being one of the most productive threads i've seen in the game so far

[Bagheera]

Signed.

Little canon details like this that can be applied to MW:O gameplay issues without resorting to knee-jerk nerf solutions are a good thing.

[Haree78]

Very good idea.

[Xandralkus]

Boating is not the problem. Fix streak lockon issues, to make them hit multiple random locations, and there is no reason to not add the SSRM 4 and 6.

I have done some theoretical weapon balancing, replacing all current in-game stats with more balanced ones. You can read about it and view the spreadsheets here: http://mwomercs.com/...eapon-redesign/

[Voidsinger]

Tickdoff Tank, on 25 November 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

This is a really good idea. I especially like that you have come up with a solution that hurts the boating of the SSRMs without totally nerfing the mechs that mount 1-3 of them. It is an elegant suggestion and I hope the devs take a good look at it.

I do have a couple questions:

1. What is the current lock on time?
2. Exactly how much of an increase to the lock on time would be best?
3. Would it be better to have an exponential increase or a linear increase?
ie. base lock on time 1 second for 1 SSRM, +0.5 for 2 SSRMs, +1.5 for 3, +3.0 for 3 and so on, that would mean 3 SSRMs would have a lock on time of 1.0+0.5+1.5+3.0= 6 seconds (exponential increase)

or
1 second base, +0.5 seconds per launcher past 1. So 2 launchers would be 1.5 lockon, 6 would be 3.5 seconds.

I am just thinking out loud here, I would love to see other suggestions/numbers on this.

1. I have no idea, sorry.
2. I'd say PGI would start out with the original Solaris VII amout (which I reemembered wrong actually, it's a +1 on the dice roll penalty, not a time penalty). However, in many cases, since Streaks don't fire without a lock, that would translate to a harder lock being needed in this game.
3. I actually liked the idea pack wolf had about the increasing time. In fact, exponential of some kind would fit the Interlock Circuit effect in tabletop perfectly regarding dice probabilities. This would of course need to be playtested for balance to find out how much. PGI could find linear works better.

I love constructive feedback.

I apologise again for remembering incorrectly. That in Solaris VII it was a +1 per launcher target number penalty rather than a time effect.

[Czardread]

Xandralkus, on 25 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Boating is not the problem. Fix streak lockon issues, to make them hit multiple random locations, and there is no reason to not add the SSRM 4 and 6.

actually, the spread will much easier to tweak on the ssrm4 and ssrm6, cause they have more missile to be fired. adjusting the chance of ct hit for ssrm2 to 70% seens like a good idea though. for ssrms 4 and ssrm6 that chance could be put on 40% per missile.

[Machinae Mortis]

This is a very good idea and seems to have traction with a lot of people, so I added it to the poll I was running here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ould-be-nerfed/

[Dragonkindred]

Tickdoff Tank, on 25 November 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

This is a really good idea. I especially like that you have come up with a solution that hurts the boating of the SSRMs without totally nerfing the mechs that mount 1-3 of them. It is an elegant suggestion and I hope the devs take a good look at it.

I do have a couple questions:

1. What is the current lock on time?
2. Exactly how much of an increase to the lock on time would be best?
3. Would it be better to have an exponential increase or a linear increase?
ie. base lock on time 1 second for 1 SSRM, +0.5 for 2 SSRMs, +1.5 for 3, +3.0 for 3 and so on, that would mean 3 SSRMs would have a lock on time of 1.0+0.5+1.5+3.0= 6 seconds (exponential increase)

or
1 second base, +0.5 seconds per launcher past 1. So 2 launchers would be 1.5 lockon, 6 would be 3.5 seconds.

I am just thinking out loud here, I would love to see other suggestions/numbers on this.

You sir deserve a fishystick!

and a bobblehead (but I'm not aloud to link them )

[NonDiegeticSound]

It's a good solid concept, and the numbers could always be tweaked until they worked nicely in game. Seems a good way to keep streaks as an anti-light weapon without allowing StreakCat boats.

[AvatarofWhat]

sweet idea, I like it a lot

[Voidsinger]

Okay, since my game crashed, a little time to explain the technical background and reasoning.

Set the wayback machine to 1989 (when TRO: 2750 was released).

Essentially, part of the reason why each streak launcher is so accurate (and heavier), is that each launcher contains its own targeting computer, the Targa/7.

Now, what needs to happen when Streak launchers are put in a mech is that the mech's own fire control system needs to be interfaced to a Targa/7 for each Streak launcher installed. That would mean a 6 Streak Catapult would have its targeting computer interfaced to 6 Targa/7s. Such interfacing should not come without a cost though.

Battletech usually rolls a pair of dice for each weapon system. This would normally mean that 6 Streaks would mean 6 to-hit rolls, some of which would fail, and therefore not fire. Mechwarrior Online on the otherhand uses a simple lock system, because it needs to. One lock, and all weapons attached to that lock hit, the equivalent to one roll to fire them all.

When Solaris VII came out, they introduced Target Interlock Circuits, the first weapons groupings. At that time, they must have been aware of the potential for Streak boating, which could not be controlled by the usual measures of heat and mass of weapons. So on page 50 of the Solaris VII GM's book, as an option, there is a little paragraph on interlocking Streak SRMs. This introduced a +1 penalty to hit for each additional launcher on the circuit.

Now, how to justify this? 6 Targeting computers are 6 separate lockons that need to be managed. This gives the option of either ensuring all systems lockon (which is what the tougher lockon is about, extra time), or managing each launcher separately in regards to lockon, and firing only those launchers which do lock (which just would not work with a manually controlled targeting reticule).

As for losing lock? Unlike LRMs which need in flight guidance, Streaks are instant. In a matter of balance, losing lockon can be justified by the smaller Targas needing to clear old data to make new calculations for the next missiles. It is the equivalent to needing to roll each round in Battletech, and makes for a much fairer balance if implemented in MWO for a 100% hit weapon. While this does break chainfire, chainfire itself is a bit of a furphy with Streaks, since heat control is not really affected, and the only reason to chainfire is to keep the cockpit rock and visual obscuration going.

[SpiralRazor]

I can agree with everything except losing the lock once you have it established. That part is dumb and you cant explain away the dumbness of such. Once youve established a "lock" your targeting computers have all the scanner silhouette and friend or foe data that they need..

These are NOT primitive computers were talking about here, but TL 2 items, same as ER PPCs.

[Voidsinger]

SpiralRazor, on 25 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

I can agree with everything except losing the lock once you have it established. That part is dumb and you cant explain away the dumbness of such. Once youve established a "lock" your targeting computers have all the scanner silhouette and friend or foe data that they need..

These are NOT primitive computers were talking about here, but TL 2 items, same as ER PPCs.

Actually you can explain it away.

First, you are assuming the missiles are "smart". From what we have seen, they are not, therefore launcher data is critical.

The Targa/7s are very specialised machines. In order to do what Streaks do, they do not just need to calculate target position, they also need to be somewhat predictive about the target's movement during missile flight. It is these predictive calculations that would take up most of the processing and data for a Targa/7.

Yes, the need to wipe is a bodge, but then, there are a great many things in BT/MWO that have really flimsy explanations in the name of simplicity and game balance.

Even Level 2 tech has some substantial limitations to it. But then, even the term "Level 2" is indicative of artificial limitations in the interests of gameplay.

[Xyberviri]

Thats such an awsome suggestion and makes perfect sense it will never be done.