97 replies to this topic

[Voidsinger]

Wow, a great deal of involved calculations there (so, I won't quote them all).

Given what Paul stated in http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/ , I think he's looking for somnething that starts at 3 Streaks and moves up, so I'd say no penalty for the second, then a sharper ramp for third and beyond.

On the issue of Clan Streaks. I think these may need to be considered carefully. Inner Sphere Streaks weigh in at 1.5 times the basic SRM launcher, Clan Streaks are twice the mass of the Clan SRM launcher of the size. This also means that Streaks for the clans carry more of a penalty compared to Inner Sphere with regards to SRM+Artemis fittings. In the end, Clan Streaks may be penalised a little differently than the IS.

Still, it is another way to look at things. I am not sure that the devs really want something calculated using default pilot skill levels. Sadly, using Battletech skill levels as a calculation factor in balancing would seem to fail in MWO.

Edited by Voidsinger, 26 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[Firewuff]

+1 and then some.

I'd also add that ECM (when it come in) should aid in breaking locks or making them harder to obtain... so tired of streak cats... they are driving me nuts.

[Stavinsky Elyas]

Voidsinger, on 26 November 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Wow, a great deal of involved calculations there (so, I won't quote them all).

Given what Paul stated in http://mwomercs.com/...apon-balancing/ , I think he's looking for somnething that starts at 3 Streaks and moves up, so I'd say no penalty for the second, then a sharper ramp for third and beyond.

On the issue of Clan Streaks. I think these may need to be considered carefully. Inner Sphere Streaks weigh in at 1.5 times the basic SRM launcher, Clan Streaks are twice the mass of the Clan SRM launcher of the size. This also means that Streaks for the clans carry more of a penalty compared to Inner Sphere with regards to SRM+Artemis fittings. In the end, Clan Streaks may be penalised a little differently than the IS.

Still, it is another way to look at things. I am not sure that the devs really want something calculated using default pilot skill levels. Sadly, using Battletech skill levels as a calculation factor in balancing would seem to fail in MWO.

I know it's not an easy task, especially as the first basic difference with the table top is that we have a much higher fire rate and that turn the table on a lot of weapons, making some having real 'little' value in game and others having serious balance troubles.

I know I'm pushing the numbers far, but clearly when I see how much damage I do with 2 Streak SRM2 already
in my jenner with 2 medium laser and 2 streak srm2, I really think there is something wrong out there.
(I had some battle with 800+ damage with that fit). And seeing how some team of 4 players abusing the cata streak
can just ruin the games, I really think that if the players don't want to be "mature" and avoid abusing the mechanics
then the game must have some strong mechanical securities.

Edited by Stavinsky Elyas, 26 November 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[Voidsinger]

Stavinsky Elyas, on 26 November 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I know it's not an easy task, especially as the first basic difference with the table top is that we have a much higher fire rate and that turn the table on a lot of weapons, making some having real 'little' value in game and others having serious balance troubles.

I know I'm pushing the numbers far, but clearly when I see how much damage I do with 2 Streak SRM2 already
in my jenner with 2 medium laser and 2 streak srm2, I really think there is something wrong out there.
(I had some battle with 800+ damage with that fit). And seeing how some team of 4 players abusing the cata streak
can just ruin the games, I really think that if the players don't want to be "mature" and avoid abusing the mechanics
then the game must have some strong mechanical securities.

I understand your concerns, I used to sometimes top the damage tables in a Commando 2D with 3 Streaks.

One possibility is to limit the number of Streaks without penalty, based on chassis type, say 1 for light/medium, 2 for heavy/assault. This keeps the self-defence function integrity intact. However, I tend not to like this, because one of the main reason Streaks were developed, heat efficiency and ammunition conservation, which are bigger problems for mechs of lower tonnages.

Part of the problem is that the reason Streaks work so well is that each launcher has a dedicated targeting computer.

One interesting suggestion from another thread was to add a Field of View seeker to missiles. I like this idea, because it would prevent many of the extreme offbore shots that mechs with Streaks are notorious for, often at near 90% to the launcher facing.

I understand how you feel about the maturity of some players. Text chat in matches sometimes goes well beyond acceptable immaturity levels, and into venomous obnoxiousness.

[Col Forbin]

Good idea..

[Stavinsky Elyas]

Not sure what you mean by the idea for a 'field of view' for the missiles, but I'm open to any suggestion
the dev could make to have the actual problem solved.

I'm not wanting to have a limit per "type" of mech either, as it would not fit in the game as it is supposed
to be played, table top or online.

Still, as we are in a Free to play game, it's sad but the game will need a lot of very strong mechanical
securities to avoid abuse of games mechanic, as it was proved time and again that Free to play
games are often plagued with peoples who are not here to "enjoy" the game but more to
"destroy" the pleasure of others by abusing every single game mechanics and other bug exploit
or cheat they can find around. Sadly enough I have witnessed that a lot in the games
I have played in the last few years, and I really hope MWO will have strong enough protection to
have those players going looking for another "destroy ground" and let normal players enjoy
the game.

[Voidsinger]

Stavinsky Elyas, on 26 November 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean by the idea for a 'field of view' for the missiles, but I'm open to any suggestion
the dev could make to have the actual problem solved.

This would mean if the target isn't within the field of view (say 45% left, right, up, down) of the facing of the launcher, the shot would miss automatically, since the missile lacks the room to turn and hit the target after being launched. This I believe is something that could easily work across all mssiles, not just Streaks, whether there is a lock on or not.

This is in fact how most of the early air to air missiles worked. They would not fire unless the target was within the missile's field of view. Of course, with the far greater distances and speeds involved, there were opportunities for the target to out-turn the much faster missile by getting out of the 'eye' of the missile. It has only been in the last decade or so that off-bore sighting, and 360 degrees seekers have started coming into their own.

[Stavinsky Elyas]

Pretty nice idea yes for the field of view.

We will see how they change this.

[Stavinsky Elyas]

Any informations on how they are going to make those game ruiners changed ?

As the more we play, the more we see catapults with 6 ssrm2 and having insta-lock and perma-lock.

[Voidsinger]

Stavinsky Elyas, on 29 November 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Any informations on how they are going to make those game ruiners changed ?

As the more we play, the more we see catapults with 6 ssrm2 and having insta-lock and perma-lock.

They're reducing the centre torso issues, revising the entire shake and smoke. That's a great deal of the effects issues.

ECM reduces them to normal SRMs.

My bet is that with ECM, they think it is done. Nice for the co-ordinated. Prepared to be pugstomped continuously if you drop in a pug, either lacking co-ordination, ECM mechs, or the co-ordination to make ECM effective (which does require training with others in the unit).

[Suicidal Idiot]

I've got a better idea. If people hate the streak cats so much, delete 2 or 3 of the missile hardpoints from the A1.

[Voidsinger]

Suicidal *****, on 29 November 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I've got a better idea. If people hate the streak cats so much, delete 2 or 3 of the missile hardpoints from the A1.

Or you might suggest deleting the A1 entirely. After all, they did it to the Centurion AH. There are after all 2 other Catapults, so pilots could still level up (unlike Centurions at the time unless you bought YLW).

The Centurion AH has continued to be listed in Technical Readouts of Battletech since the original 3025. The A1 was not mentioned in the original 3025 (but is in 3039, then so is the AH).

[Qarnage]

Great ideas in here.

[Stavinsky Elyas]

Suicidal *****, on 29 November 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I've got a better idea. If people hate the streak cats so much, delete 2 or 3 of the missile hardpoints from the A1.

Actually, having a systeme that is 'fool proof' to avoid stacking weapons that are not supposed to be stacked that way would be a nice thing, especially for weapons that are not supposed to be stacked "that way" in the table top game. And it's a good thing to think about a fool proof systeme NOW that could be added as a protection for the arrival of other new weapons (if they ever include the clans one. Like bigger SSRM)
as I really don't want to face any "SSRM 6" boats, as we would surely see it happen with some
brawler's atlas, or others short ranged fitting.

Most of the mech you can find in the Technical readouts have some fittings that include short to long range
weapons, to manage their ways through the battlefield. In the exceptions of some very specifics designs.
(Like the clan Pirahna with it's massive machine gun load)

As much as I have looked around, I don't remember any fitting with 6 SSRM of any kind.
But I have found some models using up to 4 lrm 20 (clan mech mostly).

The support roles of some mech imply they have lots of LRM, or even bigger
artillery kind of missiles.

So I hope the dev are going to do something that work fine, without killing the use
of the 1-2 SSRM2 on lighter mech, but having them using more should not be 'correct'
either (like triple SSRM2 commandos) that have nothing else to fight with and no backup weapons,
and that are not exactly "in line" with the ways the table tops mech are created.

Edited by Stavinsky Elyas, 30 November 2012 - 07:26 AM.

[Voidsinger]

Stavinsky,

The mech with 4 missile harpoints in the Catapult family is the C4. Delete two, and there is no reason for the A1 to exist at all.

Hence the semi-sarcasm in my response to the idea.

The sad fact is, the A1 has only a single function with 6 missile hardpoints, and that is mass stacking of missile weapons.

If you don't use 5 or 6, then the C4 is the better mech in all other ways, due to two energy hardpoints.

[MaddMaxx]

There is no need to nerf the other "uses" of the A1, just tone down the "abuses" (hey that rhymes)

How many SRM4's and or SRM6's can you reliably get on an A1? Expect that (or some other flavor) to be the new Beast when ECM arrives.

P.S. I would agree with the gentleman who stated that a 1s increment would be to much. I would start @.5s myself.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 30 November 2012 - 11:28 AM.

[Sable Hawk]

Just going to pipe in seeing as I posted the same idea in a different thread (why is it that one never find the 'relevant' thread until after you post something?)

+1

and I hope the Devs read this. It really should be an easy add to code (compared with some of the ideas out there), doesn't punish the 'normal' SSRM user, while keeping within the realm of logical thinking (yeah yeah, I know this is a game set in the 31st Century, but if we don't keep some logic to it then why aren't we firing fireball wands at flying Unicorns made of salt taffy.. hey you cannot prove that isn't how the 31st Century will fight its wars...)


For those interested, here is my post:
[color=#A4A4A4]
Posted Today, 05:29 PM[/color]
[color=#959595]
After reading the Posting called :Streak-SRMs - OMG NERF THEM! - Nov 23 - Update & now this thread here is my suggestion:

Each SSRM adds a lock on time delay and/or narrows the lock on zone for targeting.

To clarify, a mech with 1 SSRM takes the standard time to lock on to a target. Once a second SSRM is added, the time to lock on is increased by 20% (i.e. Lock on takes 1.2x standard). This is due to the fact that the mech's targeting computer has to run two separate missile locks simultaneously. Now add a third launcher and that increases it by 20% more. So a mech with three SSRM's takes 1.44x as long to obtain a lock on. To really have a StreakCat, one has to have at least four launchers which would increase the lock on time an additional 20%. Which means your entry level StreakCat would have a lock on time of 1.73x the lock on time of a mech with only one SSRM. And that 6 SSRM-2 Cat? For him to obtain a solid lock, necessary to fire would take 2.49x as long as a single SSRM would. This maintains the viability of a mech outfitting itself with one or two, even three SSRM racks, but also adds in a diminishing returns element that renders a full Streak Boat ineffective.

Alternatively, one could narrow the range that one can obtain a solid lock on with each additional SSRM. Looking at this logically, it does make sense. The targeting computer is a finite resource and the more sets of calculations it must do, either it must increase the time necessary to make them or must limit the amount calculated. Thus, while the lock on field for a single SSRM could be the forward 90 degree arc in front of the mech, with 2 SSRM's, that aiming arc decreases to 80 degrees. A third SSRM and the arch decreases to 60 degrees. Add a fourth SSRM and your aiming arc is now only 50 degrees wide or 25 degrees to either side of the reticle. Run a full Streak Cat with six SSRM's and your aiming arc is now only 30 degrees wide, a very narrow field to be sure, but one that a truly talented Streak Cat pilot could maintain. Now running that Streak Cat is not uber-drool but uber-skill.

Either 'fix' offers diminishing returns without affecting the efficiency of the SSRM launcher itself. Thus, the weapon does not get 'nerfed' at all (though lazy players will whine about it) it only forces those who wish to specialize in it to hone their skills and not rely on game mechanics to score their kills.

It doesn't outlaw SSRM boats or even punish those who run them so much as it balances the potent damage a Streak Boat can inflict with the skill needed to inflict it.[/color]

http://mwomercs.com/...54#entry1554154

[Voidsinger]

Well, ECM is here, and a PGI "Enhancement" has been that Streaks cease to function as well, so the argument is moot.

Now, instead of StreakCats, which could be defeated by calling in an LRM, or heavy ballistic, we have packs of Ravens running around nigh on untouchable with just 2 SSRMs (which is within the window of reasonable). They are tougher to deal with than Streakcats.

No other non-ECM light is playable. Mediums are barely, depending on Ravens in game.

Which just goes to prove everything will be abused. The Raven fan club with their "The Raven should be the only mech to get ECM." aren't exactly sporting taking the entire package of GECM, BAP, TAG and NARC. They only wanted GECM and discard the bits of the package they don't like.

So, in place of that, we need a new control.

How about having an active ECM also prevents you from using Streaks?