47 replies to this topic

[Codejack]

They aren't supposed to require a lock on to begin with; make it like MW4 where if your reticule is over the enemy when you fire, they are locked and track, ECM or no.

Edit: Oh, and give us SSRM6s!

Edited by Codejack, 20 December 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[blinkin]

no they are already dangerous enough for light mechs. the lock time is what balances streaks, if that is takin away then they are just better than standard srm.

streaks are good as they are. if you want instant gratification use standard srm.

[Mordin Ashe]

Actually the idea about locking is great, because you would have to aim a bit.
Regarding SSRM6, wait for clans.

[blinkin]

Codejack, on 20 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

They aren't supposed to require a lock on to begin with; make it like MW4 where if your reticule is over the enemy when you fire, they are locked and track, ECM or no.

Edit: Oh, and give us SSRM6s!

and you add in that you want them to ignore ecm too. why don't we allow them to shoot through walls as well or instantly overheat the enemy mech, maybe we should give them infinite range while we are at it.

i normally try to avoid using too much sarcasm when arguing but what you are asking for is rather comical.

are you trolling by any chance?

[WiCkEd]

I would like Ssrms to function as standard while in an enemy bubble.TT rules support this

[Strum Wealh]

Codejack, on 20 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

They aren't supposed to require a lock on to begin with; make it like MW4 where if your reticule is over the enemy when you fire, they are locked and track, ECM or no.

Edit: Oh, and give us SSRM6s!

Actually... you're wrong on two counts.

First: the whole point of the Streak Missile System is ammunition conservation - the launcher is specifically designed so that it "withholds fire until it receives a solid lock, ensuring all missiles will hit".

Quote

Originally developed in 2647, the Streak SRM Launcher is relatively similar to the standard SRM launcher but linked to a unique Targa-7 fire control system. This system is designed to guarantee a hit against any target onto which the pilot can get a lock, a special feature of this system preventing the weapon from firing at a target when there is no lock-on, saving ammunition by preventing shots that would miss anyway.

Unlike a standard SRM whose shotgun effect may result in some misses and some hits, Streak guidance gives the lighter launchers the effective average firepower of the heavier and more wasteful SRM systems, but with considerably less variation in damage effects. The only disadvantages are that Streak launchers are incompatible with other missile target acquisition technologies such as the Artemis IV FCS and Narc Missile Beacon, their specialized ammunition is much more expensive, and some users are willing to accept partial hits rather than not be able to fire on demand.

Second: the IS doesn't get its own versions of the SSRM-4 and SSRM-6 until 3058, after having the opportunity to reverse-engineer Clan-built examples.
Thus, we should not have IS-built SSRM-4s or SSRM-6s until then.

That being said, TT rules do dictate that SSRMs under the influence of Guardian ECM suffer no ill effects... but, those under the influence of Angel ECM are affected, but may fire through the Angel's ECM field as though they are standard SRMs.

Quote

Streak missiles fired into or through a hostile Angel ECM bubble will not fire if the to-hit roll fails, but on a successful Streak launcher attack, the attacker must roll on the Cluster table as though the launcher were a standard (non-Streak) model.

(TacOps, pg. 279)
This was also clarified/reiterated by one of Catalyst's BT developers back in April.
While it does seem logical that the ECM's ability to disrupt the Artemis, BAP, C3, and NARC systems should have some effect on the Streak system, there is technically merit to the argument that the Streak system should suffer little or no adverse effects from ECM.

[Zac78]

blinkin, on 21 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

and you add in that you want them to ignore ecm too. why don't we allow them to shoot through walls as well or instantly overheat the enemy mech, maybe we should give them infinite range while we are at it.

i normally try to avoid using too much sarcasm when arguing but what you are asking for is rather comical.

are you trolling by any chance?

Ah, now I get it - you are the only one allowed to be sarcastic as long as the proposal seem to be comical to you (remember "flush coolant").

Nvm, bro, agreed to your point at this topic. SSRM's don't need a buff atm.

[Codejack]

Strum Wealh, on 21 December 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Actually... you're wrong on two counts.

First: the whole point of the Streak Missile System is ammunition conservation - the launcher is specifically designed so that it "withholds fire until it receives a solid lock, ensuring all missiles will hit".

Second: the IS doesn't get its own versions of the SSRM-4 and SSRM-6 until 3058, after having the opportunity to reverse-engineer Clan-built examples.
Thus, we should not have IS-built SSRM-4s or SSRM-6s until then.

That being said, TT rules do dictate that SSRMs under the influence of Guardian ECM suffer no ill effects... but, those under the influence of Angel ECM are affected, but may fire through the Angel's ECM field as though they are standard SRMs.(TacOps, pg. 279)
This was also clarified/reiterated by one of Catalyst's BT developers back in April.
While it does seem logical that the ECM's ability to disrupt the Artemis, BAP, C3, and NARC systems should have some effect on the Streak system, there is technically merit to the argument that the Streak system should suffer little or no adverse effects from ECM.

And when did we get Angel ECM? It didn't even start DEVELOPMENT until 3052.

MWO ECM does way more than Guardian and Angel put together.

As for Streaks, I know SARNA says it needs a lock, but IIRC the official rules just said that it doesn't launch any missiles that wouldn't hit; no lock required.

The TT rules have been thrown out, so they are no longer good arguments for anything in this game. If they want to change ECM back to normal, that would be fine, too, but they appear to have no intention of doing so.

The problem right now is that the weapons are all but useless unless you have ECM yourself or you got lucky enough to run into a PUG that doesn't have any.

Edited by Codejack, 21 December 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[o0Marduk0o]

blinkin, on 21 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

are you trolling by any chance?

I am not sure about it. It seems he is serious and this is worrisome.

[JTAlweezy]

Codejack, on 20 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

They aren't supposed to require a lock on to begin with; make it like MW4 where if your reticule is over the enemy when you fire, they are locked and track, ECM or no.

Edit: Oh, and give us SSRM6s!

I agree, a missile can still dumbfire without a lock, all missiles can. Nothing in terms or warfare is that propriatery

[Codejack]

o0Marduk0o, on 21 December 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I am not sure about it. It seems he is serious and this is worrisome.

Why is wanting things to work at least roughly the way they did in every previous BT/MW game worrisome?

[Zyllos]

Personally, SSRMs do not need such a tight turn radius. That one be the first balancing factor.

Second, the spreading of damage with SSRMs does not feel implmented. I have not seen any SSRMs hitting the legs on a stationary target.

Third, the locking system needs to be seperated from LRMs (and Artemis). While the crosshair is on a lockable target, for every 0.5s on the target, you can fire 1 SSRM. Thus a SSRM/2 would take 1.0s to lock on and fire while a SSRM/6 would take 3.0s to lock on and fire.

[MasterBLB]

Zyllos, on 21 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Second, the spreading of damage with SSRMs does not feel implmented. I have not seen any SSRMs hitting the legs on a stationary target.

It is,now SSRMs don't always hit CT only,but also RT/LT too,and sometimes arms.

[Zyllos]

MasterBLB, on 21 December 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

It is,now SSRMs don't always hit CT only,but also RT/LT too,and sometimes arms.

But they said in a recent thread that it was going to spread to the legs also.

The only reason why targets get hit in the arm is because they are moving when they are fired. They should be targetting all the locations, not the torsos only.

[o0Marduk0o]

Codejack, on 21 December 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Why is wanting things to work at least roughly the way they did in every previous BT/MW game worrisome?

Because previous MW games had a much worse weapon balance.

[blinkin]

Zac78, on 21 December 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Ah, now I get it - you are the only one allowed to be sarcastic as long as the proposal seem to be comical to you (remember "flush coolant").

Nvm, bro, agreed to your point at this topic. SSRM's don't need a buff atm.

i said i try, never said anything about being successful.

[canned wolf]

In TT you roll the dice, if it would have been a miss, you don't use any ammo. You don't hit any more often with streaks than with regular srm's. When you do hit, they all hit though.

Previous mechwarriors were not balanced for multiplayer, so they are even less relevant than TT.

There are two ideas that I would accept for how SSRM's work. Either the piper turns red when you are properly leading the target and won't allow you to fire them unless they are going to hit, or you lock instantly when the piper is on the target and lose it the instant it isn't on the target. Once again the missiles shouldn't fire without lock.

Currently allowing the lock to linger for a few seconds after the target isn't centered removes too much skill for light mech pilots. It also reduces the usfulness to heavier mechs because they are taking hits while they are waiting for the missiles to lock.

[Strum Wealh]

Codejack, on 21 December 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

And when did we get Angel ECM? It didn't even start DEVELOPMENT until 3052.

MWO ECM does way more than Guardian and Angel put together.

The last part of my post was (at least, in part) agreeing with you - there is a meritorious case for the ECM system (which should be modeled on the Guardian ECM suite rather than the Angel ECM suite or some strange hybrid of the two) having little or no effect on Streak launchers.
If there is an effect by ECM against Streaks, it should be something like doubling or tripling (or more) the amount of time it takes to achieve a lock, without outright preventing achieving a lock - an effect unique to Streaks, and substantial enough to make a difference to the players while still allowing Streaks to be fully usable (as the TT rules would dictate).

Codejack, on 21 December 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

As for Streaks, I know SARNA says it needs a lock, but IIRC the official rules just said that it doesn't launch any missiles that wouldn't hit; no lock required.

Actually, the official rules do indicate that Streaks need a lock, and that the locking process is integrated into the TT's To-Hit Roll.

Quote

A player attempting to lock a Streak missile on target must make a standard to-hit roll during the Weapon Attack Phase as if he were firing a standard SRM.

If successful, the player immediately fires his Streak SRM at the locked-on target. All Streak missiles automatically hit (no roll on the Cluster Hits Table is required), and the player rolls as normal to determine the hit locations.

If the roll fails, the player does not achieve a lock and so does not fire the SRMs or build up any heat.

(Total Warfare, pg. 138)

Codejack, on 21 December 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

The TT rules have been thrown out, so they are no longer good arguments for anything in this game. If they want to change ECM back to normal, that would be fine, too, but they appear to have no intention of doing so.

The TT rules have not been thrown out - the Devs still use them as a reference and a starting point, then make adjustments from there.
Looking at the game, the TT rules are arguably followed more often than they are actively contravened.
However, they were written for a 28-year-old, turn-based, dice-controlled tabletop strategy game, so they cannot account for many of the elements that would be necessary to account for in a modern, computerized, first-person vehicle combat simulator - so it's up to the Devs to "fill in the holes" as best they can and as they see fit.

[Zyllos]

Strum Wealh, on 21 December 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

...
The TT rules have not been thrown out - the Devs still use them as a reference and a starting point, then make adjustments from there.
Looking at the game, the TT rules are arguably followed more often than they are actively contravened.
However, they were written for a 28-year-old, turn-based, dice-controlled tabletop strategy game, so they cannot account for many of the elements that would be necessary to account for in a modern, computerized, first-person vehicle combat simulator - so it's up to the Devs to "fill in the holes" as best they can and as they see fit.

I can not agree on the statemetn of "they cannot account for many of the elements...". It has been proven time and time again that the vast majority of the elements in TT BT can be brought over to the read time game.

The only major ones I can think of that you can not account for is how easy it is to hit mechs in a real time game based on size and shape. There was no such modifiers in the TT but they majority factor in how easy it is to hit a target in a real time setting.

But most of everything else can be brought over in on almost a 1:1 basis.

- Random hit locations, add a cone of fire. Which PGI vehemently is against. All the top shooters has a cone of fire and would balance arrays of smaller weapons with high damage shot weapons.

- Heat only matters if you keep dissipation down. This is only true if you only have a penalty of shutdown at 100%. They should really redevelop the heat system back from the ground up, which I have given a ton of information on so it is up with PGI to rework the system. You can still make the heat system follow the 10s based TT rules while keeping the damage inline with whatever RoF you want. It is a 100% scalar value that will not change how the game is played.

But, PGI is not willing to budge on the major systems they have already placed a lot of time into but the core BT community can see flaws in. So we have to make due with it.

[Codejack]

Strum Wealh, on 21 December 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

If there is an effect by ECM against Streaks, it should be something like doubling or tripling (or more) the amount of time it takes to achieve a lock, without outright preventing achieving a lock - an effect unique to Streaks, and substantial enough to make a difference to the players while still allowing Streaks to be fully usable (as the TT rules would dictate).

Fair enough