196 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

For my part, having read a few more posts since posting here earlier, I just don't think all of the code is in place for everything, yet, though it's very rapidly getting there. LRMs CAN be very devastating, because you don't know precisely where they're going to hit. In the videos, the way the LRMs fly give me the idea that they might be more prone to follow the Shots-From-Above rules from the tabletop, in other words making it much easier to get head and upper torso hits, which is fine with me, because it's neither intentional nor terribly dangerous unless you spank someone enough times with stacks of LRMs, and thus not dishonorable.

[Mechteric]

I hope its like MWLL, where an LRM5 has faster reload rate than LRM20 (and same for the 10's and 15's, progressively)

[00dlez]

CapperDeluxe, on 08 May 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I hope its like MWLL, where an LRM5 has faster reload rate than LRM20 (and same for the 10's and 15's, progressively)

Meh... I think (knowing not much about the behind the scenes BT stuff) that part of the weight difference in the LRMs are additional loading mechanics to keep the times similar or the same. I'm okay with keeping the times on par with one another rather than different

[wwiiogre]

I like what I saw with the LRM's and the SRM's. Sticking to TT ranges and minimum range for LRM really will make the game play differently than MW4. As you will have to use terrain and the map to sneak towards an enemy. Use scouts to find the enemy while not being found yourself. Such that you can use initiative to bring the enemy under fire, then break away using cover and concealment and ridge lines. Picking off one then another enemy mech with concentration of fire, then peal away and wash, rinse and repeat.

The one thing we don't know about LRM's is how many hit when you get a lock, where is the damage done to the target and how concentrated is it? Once we have these things identified we might have something to debate. I am perfectly happy with them sticking to TT ranges and including arming distances. Which even modern RPG's currently have. Only suicidal fanatics would not have a safety arming device on missiles. Because that means they would always explode when your mech is hit or overheated.

One thing did bother me and I believe it just hasn't been discussed. Is the ability indirect fire even before the jenner mech got in line of sight to the enemy. The Atlas was firing indirect LRM's. I am guessing, the scout mech could have had a module/upgrade that allowed almost C3 style master/slave ability to the Atlas such that he could fire even before the Jenner saw an enemy. Note from my observation the Jenner merely had them on a scanner, no direct line of sight and definitely did not narc or tag them. This may be a glitch, but it seems way more powerful than I expected for scouts. So I will sit back and wait for beta so I can possibly understand this.

Also I was not able to see how hard it is to lock on missiles while a mech with LRM's was in direct line of sight of its target. In MW4 as an example you actually have to keep the crosshairs on a target to obtain a lock, while it appeared you nearly had to keep the target in MWO lit up. A huge difference and one I think makes more sense. Just can't wait to really stress test this myself.

I look forward to learning this game and seeing and embracing the differences between MW4 and all other MW's and MWO. Should be a wonderful learning curve and from what I see a great game that embraces tactics over min/maxing munchkinism.

chris

[Sprouticus]

00dlez, on 08 May 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Oh no! Strengths and draw backs to different weapons!?! Oh noes! Which weapon is the best and I'll use that!

LRMs can lock on, can provide indirect fire and as we also saw can fire quickly. There's a thread going where someone is concerned they are OP).

Agreed. balance is good.

a few points people have not brought up.

1) you dont need to keep a reticule on target to launch missles. In the video Russ hits a close mech with 4 ML and then launches missiles at a target at the same time (or close to it). Mind you this was in the middle of an interview.
2) we dont know how much damage that indirect fire is doing
3) IF (and its a big if) the min range is too long, they can lower it to 150 or 100m. Personally that seems too short for me.
4) IF (again a big if) the max range is too short, perhaps they bump all weapons by 50m.

But until we get LOTS of testing with real 12v12 in coordinated battles in a beta, I see no reason to have concerns. Sure you can close fast, run through the line to get the support mech, but you're exposing your back to the enemy brawlers...not something I advise. Sure you can send a harasser in a flanking maneuver, but a Cata in particular is equipped to defend itself. And it can STILL launch indirect fire while doing it.

[DaZur]

Ya ask me?

I believe the missiles cycle-time should be commensurate to the number of missiles... i.e:

• 20 rack @ 1 second per missile = 20 seconds cycle.
  
• 15 rack @ 1 second per missile = 15 seconds cycle.
  
• 10 rack @ 1 second per missile = 10 seconds cycle.
  
• 6 rack @ 1 second per missile = 6 seconds cycle.
  
• 4 rack @ 1 second per missile = 5 seconds cycle.
  
• 2 rack @ 1 second per missile = 4 seconds cycle.

I purposely nerfed the 4 and 2 racks because, well... 2 and 4 second cycles would just be redonkulous.

Add cycle/load times with acquisition and lock times and I think we have a logical and plausible balance for missiles.

what would be cool is for Mechs who's missile tubes are not capped, it would be a super-neat visual queue to a Mech re-load sequence to actually populate each tube with each passing second. Imagine staring down a Catapult after the pilot loosed all missiles and nervously watching the tubes load-up one-by one...

Talk about pucker factor!

[00dlez]

DaZur, on 08 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Ya ask me?

I believe the missiles cycle-time should be commensurate to the number of missiles... i.e:

• 20 rack @ 1 second per missile = 20 seconds cycle.
  
• 15 rack @ 1 second per missile = 15 seconds cycle.
  
• 10 rack @ 1 second per missile = 10 seconds cycle.
  
• 6 rack @ 1 second per missile = 6 seconds cycle.
  
• 4 rack @ 1 second per missile = 5 seconds cycle.
  
• 2 rack @ 1 second per missile = 4 seconds cycle.

I purposely nerfed the 4 and 2 racks because, well... 2 and 4 second cycles would just be redonkulous.


Add cycle/load times with acquisition and lock times and I think we have a logical and plausible balance for missiles.

what would be cool is for Mechs who's missile tubes are not capped, it would be a super-neat visual queue to a Mech re-load sequence to actually populate each tube with each passing second. Imagine staring down a Catapult after the pilot loosed all missiles and nervously watching the tubes load-up one-by one...

Talk about pucker factor!

20 second reload? Immediately no.

[Aegis Kleais]

With LRMs having an effective range of only 440m, this can be traversed by:

a 118kph Light in 14 seconds
a 86kph Medium in 18 seconds
a 65kph Heavy in 25 seconds
a 54kph Assault in 30 seconds

So if you're LRM-heavy, you need to keep you distance from enemies, other wise a large chunk of your potency becomes ineffective and useless when someone closes in range to you.

[sng ign]

My guess is that's what the Beta will be used for -- tweaking the weapon systems for real time. B-tech being what it was (turn based), players were able to figure out which weapons to fire, when, where (hit location). In real time simulation, reflexes are often half the battle (which was only reflected as "Mechwarrior skills" in piloting, gunnery, etc. in the p&p game).

[AC]

I have to agree with everyone that the 640 meters is too short ranged. Think about it. The Jenenr goes 119kph, so the distance between 630 into the min range of 200 is 430 meters. 119kph is 33 meters per second. The Jenner can cover the distance to the catapult in 13 seconds. The effective range of ML is 270meters, so the Jenner can fire at the catapult in 11 seconds.

A hunchie goes 65kph, 18m/s. So a hunchie can close the distance in 24 seconds. And that is stock speed. What if someone does an engine upgrade? A hunchie with an AC10 and 2ML could probably have enough tonnage to be quite speedy.

Some also noted damage. The catapult with 4ML has 2 LRM 15. The catapult that carried 2 LRM 20 only had 2SL. So that might explain why the LRM's from that Cata didn't seem to do a massive amount of damage. What bothers me more is the visuals. The LRM corkscrew around like cheap Saturn Missiles on the Forth of July. The chinese had more accurate missiles centuries ago. The visuals for the LRM's seem very silly, and I half expect them to smash into eachother in flight and explode. It also makes them appear to have no mass, because they change trajectory so quickly. You would think a guided missile in the future would at least appear to be more accurate that what exists today.

[Shredhead]

Hey guys, it's not the weapons ranging too short, but the maps being too small, or so I fear. From what I've seen in the videos, they where on each others laps within seconds. It is my personal feeling I'll be shouting for larger maps after the first games in Beta (you know, after those rounds you run around gaping and drooling for all the awesomeness).

[MaddMaxx]

AC, on 08 May 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I have to agree with everyone that the 640 meters is too short ranged. Think about it. The Jenenr goes 119kph, so the distance between 630 into the min range of 200 is 430 meters. 119kph is 33 meters per second. The Jenner can cover the distance to the catapult in 13 seconds. The effective range of ML is 270meters, so the Jenner can fire at the catapult in 11 seconds.

A hunchie goes 65kph, 18m/s. So a hunchie can close the distance in 24 seconds. And that is stock speed. What if someone does an engine upgrade? A hunchie with an AC10 and 2ML could probably have enough tonnage to be quite speedy.

Some also noted damage. The catapult with 4ML has 2 LRM 15. The catapult that carried 2 LRM 20 only had 2SL. So that might explain why the LRM's from that Cata didn't seem to do a massive amount of damage. What bothers me more is the visuals. The LRM corkscrew around like cheap Saturn Missiles on the Forth of July. The chinese had more accurate missiles centuries ago. The visuals for the LRM's seem very silly, and I half expect them to smash into eachother in flight and explode. It also makes them appear to have no mass, because they change trajectory so quickly. You would think a guided missile in the future would at least appear to be more accurate that what exists today.

Or one could look at it this way.

In order to traverse those "short" distances in those exact times, the run to target would have to be across open, unobstructed ground.

Then that Jenner has to eat at least one Volley (or 30 LRM's) on the run in. Then if he/she survives that, will have to eat 4 ML's at full "burn-in" and perhaps more than once and given a Team with a brain cell, will face the Cats support Mech. Rinse and repeat for the Hunchie (just add to Missile salvos to the run in)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 08 May 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

We will get right on using TT rules, and also not using TT rules simultaneously

[DaZur]

00dlez, on 08 May 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

20 second reload? Immediately no.

"No"... Just like that? No?

I'm crushed.... LOL!

Edited by DaZur, 08 May 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Shredhead, on 08 May 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Hey guys, it's not the weapons ranging too short, but the maps being too small, or so I fear. From what I've seen in the videos, they where on each others laps within seconds. It is my personal feeling I'll be shouting for larger maps after the first games in Beta (you know, after those rounds you run around gaping and drooling for all the awesomeness).

They wanted to show the "FIGHTING". Something they know is the thing we/everybody wants to see. If they had showed a carefully choreographed Stealth approach, with the Commander watching his/her Tac map screen for the 6 minutes it took the Scouts to creep in all quiet like, would that have been a better video?

Neg!

Aff?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 08 May 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[Nighthound]

DaZur, on 08 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

*snip*

• 20 rack @ 1 second per missile = 20 seconds cycle.
  
• 15 rack @ 1 second per missile = 15 seconds cycle.
  
• 10 rack @ 1 second per missile = 10 seconds cycle.
  
• 6 rack @ 1 second per missile = 6 seconds cycle.
  
• 4 rack @ 1 second per missile = 5 seconds cycle.
  
• 2 rack @ 1 second per missile = 4 seconds cycle.

*snip*

This would just be ridiculous, this makes no sense at all, I can't even begin to understand how this would be a good idea.

Here is why:

4 LRM5 Launchers - 4x2 Tons ; 4x1 Crit ; 4x2 Heat for a Total of 8 Tons, 4 Crit and 8 Heat
2 LRM10 Launcher - 2x5 Tons ; 2x2 Crit ; 2x4 Heat for a Total of 10 Tons, 4 Crit and 8 Heat
1 LRM20 Launcher - .................................................................... 10 Tons, 5 Crit and 6 Heat

as you can see those are all pretty much in the same vicinity of each other, BUT with your cycle times the Damage output of those LRM5 would be 4 times as much as those LRM20 and even the LRM10 has double the output of the LRM20 which would make it utterly useless.
Same would hold true for "your" SRMs even though not by that much because you "nerfed" the smaler ones.

Sorry but this Idea is just insane.

Discussion is nice, but keep in mind that we have a lot of Beta-testing ahead of us before we should make such outrageous claims.

[Dr Killinger]

Personally, I can't be happier that they're sticking to TT ranges. Nothing irritates me more than a camper. Support mechs will now need to move and rely both on scouts and close support to bring their massive arsenal to bear.

Hopefully because of his, LRMs will pack a punch in this game, unlike other Mechwarrior games. And, people won't just sit in one spot firing LRMs like an *****. There is neither skill nor fun in that.

[Mason Grimm]

I merged the LRM not being so LR thread + the LRM cycle times thread.

Because they are both LRM; whats the matter with you?!?!?!

[Kudzu]

Battletech has always been about knife-fights, the previous MW titles seem to have missed that mark completely.

LRM's being effective from 180-630m is perfectly fine as they're designed to soften up the enemy from long range not to knock them out without ever being touched. To be an effective fire support mech will require good teamwork and smart maneuvering-- your job will be to soften up targets so that your closer ranged teammates have an easier time killing them and their job will be to keep close range mechs out of your face so that you can do your job.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mason Grimm, on 08 May 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

I merged the LRM not being so LR thread + the LRM cycle times thread.

Because they are both LRM; whats the matter with you?!?!?!

But they both discuss different topics about the LRM, that will now get entangled and ultimately more confusing