41 replies to this topic

[Orkhepaj]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

In my opinion, in order to give them a "miss" factor like all other weapons they need to not perma-lock... just like they do now. So LoS would be risky and hard to keep lock on if they had cover, but at least it would make it possible to lock without Sensors.



Ehem, I have 1 mech that uses an LRM 10. Your troll missed it's mark.

yeah the others use lrm 20-s . thx troll

[Freeride Forever]

Grrrrrrrrrrr............. TT.......... RRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Freeride Forever, 03 December 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Mercules]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

yeah the others use lrm 20-s . thx troll

Check out my Signature. See the mech in that? That mech could MAYBE carry one LRM 20 with nothing else. I don't use LRMs in general.

3 Commandos - No LRMs
3 Centurions - 1 has a single LRM 10
2 'phracts - No LRMs
1 Awesome - No LRMs
1 Founder's Jenner - No LRMs.

Freeride Forever, on 03 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Grrrrrrrrrrr............. TT.......... RRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't like Battletech, don't play a game based off it. As stated in my OP I believe this is occurring because the implementation of LRMs DIDN'T follow TT.

[Orkhepaj]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Check out my Signature. See the mech in that? That mech could MAYBE carry one LRM 20 with nothing else. I don't use LRMs in general.

3 Commandos - No LRMs
3 Centurions - 1 has a single LRM 10
2 'phracts - No LRMs
1 Awesome - No LRMs
1 Founder's Jenner - No LRMs.




If you don't like Battletech, don't play a game based off it. As stated in my OP I believe this is occurring because the implementation of LRMs DIDN'T follow TT.

battletech =/= tt

[Trauglodyte]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Before you start screaming about ECM hear me out on my thoughts on LRMs. I am going to reference Table Top, because TT is the source of the setting/mythos and start of the rules. For this to be Mechwarrior it needs to at least start and give homage to the TT Battletech/Mechwarrior.



In the TT game you can fire LRMs in one of two modes. You can direct fire them, or you can indirect fire them.

Direct fire means you can see a mech or it is on your sensors. LRMs have a max range but you can still fire on a mech you can see.

Indirect fire, on the other hand, requires someone to be an acting spotter for you. At that point you can use their sensors to determine where your missiles are going and to identify the target for the limited guidance system in the missiles themselves.



In MWO you have one basic mode of firing which is akin to Indirect Fire. Either you, or some other member of your team must lock their sensors on the target and then you can begin the lock with your LRMs. This is implemented incorrectly.

Here is why I say that: You should be able to fire LRMs at targets as far away as 1,000 meters. Currently you can not. Your "sensors" only extend 800m by default. So you can not fire your LRMs as you would in TT without added equipment or modules. You simply can't.

LRMs should NOT require you to "sensor lock" (AKA: Hit "r") your target before the "missile lock" occurs. Instead you should be able to point your reticle at any given target and have it "missile lock".

In addition you should have Indirect Fire which is simply using someone else's "Sensor Lock" to fire on a target you do not have LoS to. You can start the "Missile Lock" on such a target by hitting your own "r" and pointing it into that red box.
=================================================

What does this have to do with ECM?

Very simply, the reason ECM is counteracting LRMs, which it shouldn't based on the TT rules, is that LRMs in MWO need to have "Sensor Lock" to be properly fired. If you eliminate the need for "Sensor Lock" to achieve "Missile Lock" for LRMs with direct LoS to the target, you have put ECM back into the proper place it has in TT. It doesn't negate LRMs it negates certain information systems that LRMs rely upon. It would negate being able to Indirect Fire on mechs carrying ECM in that you would not be able to obtain the "Sensor Lock" and send that through the pseudo C3 system we all have to the LRM mech so that it could achieve lock on a mech it can't personally see.


It isn't that ECM is implemented incorrectly. All of this is a side effect of LRMs being implemented incorrectly.

You thoughts are correct but you're forgetting one invaluable piece of information. We don't have direct/indirect fire in this game because every mech is assumed to be sporting the C3 system. In other words, when joe schmoe sees a target, whether you see it directly or not is irrelevent as you assume his spotting information and can fire. Therefore, the current implementation of ECM is correct as it negates joe's C3 information transfer to you.

Now, where you are correct is the fact that when you have sensor lock on a 100% clear LOS target, ECM still impacts you. This is because PGI coded missiles to operate just one way. And, can you blame them? I'm not even sure it is possible to have two different forms of targetting code in reference to one weapon type. If they could, you'd see Streaks operate differently as they wouldn't be working within the C3 indirect fire rules and thus lose lock on LOS blocking.

I'm going to love ECM but it is a shame that LRMs are getting shafted in the process. But, TAG will help with this. PGI just needs to clean up how TAG works cause it is kind of wonky right now.

[Mercules]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

battletech =/= tt

Battletech ~is~ TT.

Mechwarrior is not TT but again, the weapons you use, the mechs you pilot, the rules for the system all come from TT. Mechwarrior Online needs to at least give homage to TT or it isn't Mechwarrior. I could play Hawken if I wanted that.

[Orkhepaj]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Battletech ~is~ TT.

Mechwarrior is not TT but again, the weapons you use, the mechs you pilot, the rules for the system all come from TT. Mechwarrior Online needs to at least give homage to TT or it isn't Mechwarrior. I could play Hawken if I wanted that.

Not rly battletech is the universe where both TT and MWO are played.
Just like Star Trek =/= Star Trek the card game or whatever

Edited by Orkhepaj, 03 December 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[Mercules]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Not rly battletech is the universe where both TT and MWO are played.
Just like Star Trek =/= Star Trek the card game or whatever

StarTrek is not the CCG, but the episodes on TV are StarTrek. Long before a single Battletech novel/game/cartoon was ever made all the mythos you learned about that setting was from the rule books. Where the novels contradict the rules we were told to ignore the novels.
The Battletech universe is the source books from the game, everything else is pseudo-canon.

Edited by Mercules, 03 December 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Orkhepaj]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

StarTrek is not the CCG, but the episodes on TV are StarTrek. Long before a single Battletech novel/game/cartoon was ever made all the mythos you learned about that setting was from the rule books. Where the novels contradict the rules we were told to ignore the novels.
The Battletech universe is the source books from the game, everything else is pseudo-canon.

It doesnt matter where they origin from .

[Mercules]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

It doesnt matter where they origin from .

You forgot the, "To me..." before that statement. To most of us it does. We want to play Mechwarrior Online not "Mech Fighting Online". There is a difference and it will drive the core players away.

[Orkhepaj]

Mercules, on 03 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

You forgot the, "To me..." before that statement. To most of us it does. We want to play Mechwarrior Online not "Mech Fighting Online". There is a difference and it will drive the core players away.

then you can ad the "to me" or "imho" to all of your posts , cause thats how it works
btw i played mw3 before tt then TO ME this mwo shouldnt be balanced on tt at all , especially as that is a turn based tactical game with multiple mechs per players vs a pc fps shooti shooti

[Mercules]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

then you can ad the "to me" or "imho" to all of your posts , cause thats how it works
btw i played mw3 before tt then TO ME this mwo shouldnt be balanced on tt at all , especially as that is a turn based tactical game with multiple mechs per players vs a pc fps shooti shooti

And none of this has anything to do with the topic. Could you please at least attempt to post something pertinent to the topic? First a "qq" comment then when that failed a "Dis ain't no TT." *sigh* and I used to attract a higher class of troll. What happened to my life?

[Sovolis]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

then you can ad the "to me" or "imho" to all of your posts , cause thats how it works
btw i played mw3 before tt then TO ME this mwo shouldnt be balanced on tt at all , especially as that is a turn based tactical game with multiple mechs per players vs a pc fps shooti shooti

You're barking up the wrong tree. Every thread about balance has a meta argument about how the mechanics are relative to TT. The reason is simple; TT is BattleTech and without TT none of us would be playing a game called MechWarrior Online. You lost this argument the second you typed Battletech =/= TT.

[Orkhepaj]

Sovolis, on 03 December 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

You're barking up the wrong tree. Every thread about balance has a meta argument about how the mechanics are relative to TT. The reason is simple; TT is BattleTech and without TT none of us would be playing a game called MechWarrior Online. You lost this argument the second you typed Battletech =/= TT.

sure... why do you think most ppl want TT and would quit playing without it ? Maybe PGI should drop the shooter thingy and make a 3D TT for the pc/consoles/mobile

but you are legendary so you must be right

Edited by Orkhepaj, 03 December 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Taizan]

I guess we'll be seeing more of this tomorrow, but anyway just for clarification if I understand this correctly:

If you have direct LoS on a ECM-ed aka "hidden" mech you can lock / "direct fire" him but not be able to share the target info to others
You still can get a "direct fire" lock on an ECM-ed mech in LoS, it will just take twice as long
"Indirect fire" will only work if you are within 200m of the spotted target, lock will still take twice as long

Perhaps the OP is referring to LRMs firing in artillery or dumb fire mode (in effect like a stalin organ?). I don't see that happening atm because it seems that PGI prefers to give ballistic weapons the "sniper stamp", not missiles.

Edited by Taizan, 03 December 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[inquisitor]

Orkhepaj, on 03 December 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

omg at this qq
spoiled little brat wants his eazy 0 skill lrm to kill everything
lrm-s are so overpowered , hopefully ecm will be there to turn the tide

Congratulations, you are today's *****.

[Choombatta]

topgun505, on 03 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

We have seen repeatedly that the moment you give players access to any weapon system that is of any significant power and that is point and click it pretty much gets IMMEDIATELY abused to the extreme.

What weapon system in this game is not "point and click"?

[Solis Obscuri]

Trauglodyte, on 03 December 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

You thoughts are correct but you're forgetting one invaluable piece of information. We don't have direct/indirect fire in this game because every mech is assumed to be sporting the C3 system. In other words, when joe schmoe sees a target, whether you see it directly or not is irrelevent as you assume his spotting information and can fire. Therefore, the current implementation of ECM is correct as it negates joe's C3 information transfer to you.

Now, where you are correct is the fact that when you have sensor lock on a 100% clear LOS target, ECM still impacts you. This is because PGI coded missiles to operate just one way. And, can you blame them? I'm not even sure it is possible to have two different forms of targetting code in reference to one weapon type. If they could, you'd see Streaks operate differently as they wouldn't be working within the C3 indirect fire rules and thus lose lock on LOS blocking.

I'm going to love ECM but it is a shame that LRMs are getting shafted in the process. But, TAG will help with this. PGI just needs to clean up how TAG works cause it is kind of wonky right now.

It isn't C3. We effectively can't have C3 in this game, since C3 networks share targeting data to improve accuracy of direct-fire weapons... and accuracy of direct fire weapons is determined by player aiming, not rolling dice against range/movement modifiers:

Quote

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)
The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information.

To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit number at long range.

The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.

TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).

LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

Minimum Ranges: Minimum range is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Variable Damage Weapons: The range, to determine the Damage Value of a Variable Damage Weapon, is always determined from the attacking unit to the target.

Stealth Armor: Armor that inficts range modifiers against attacking units does not confuse a C3 network. While such additional range modifiers apply to the nearest attacking unit, they do not apply to any other units using the network to attack. However, some such systems (notably the Stealth Armor System, p. 142) include their own ECM system; in this case, an attacking unit must be outside the effective range of the ECM mounted on the target unit, or the attacker gets cutoff from the network.

(Total Warfare; p. 131)

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 03 December 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Sovolis]

In TT ECM negates the effects of BAP; it does in MWO as well.
In TT ECM negates the effects of Artemis; it does in MWO as well.
In TT ECM negates the effects of any NARC beacon trying to broadcast from within the ECM field (180m radius in MWO); it does in MWO as well.
In TT ECM negates the effects of a TAG laser fired from within the ECM field; it does in MWO as well.
In TT ECM negates the effects of C3 and C3i for any mech in the ECM field; If we consider the lack of HUD information sharing and the minimap and target info box flicker to any mech in the ECM field to be the MWO representation of this then it does in MWO as well.

At 1.5 tons and 2 critical slots; if this was all the ECM was doing it would be on par with BAP, Artemis, NARC, and TAG. In fact it would probably still be a bit OP, but not devastatingly so. Add in the fact that it cuts all sensor range by 75%, something it doesn't do in TT, and it becomes ridiculous. Doubling target lock times isn't a part of TT either. Reducing sensor range is something that should only be accomplished by a module for a hefty GXP investment. Mercules will argue that both the doubling of target lock times and reduction of sensor range is due to LRMs not being implimented properly. Personally I think he is splitting hairs and that both features are unnecessary. Without them the ECM is rather powerful relative to every other piece of equipment for 1.5 tons and 2 slots and without them is a good place to start before making tweaks to the system. I also would point to Kobold's post; by all indications PGI believes that LRMs are operating as intended, they even got a buff in the last patch.

The ECM does two things not apart of the lore that will greatly unbalance the game. LRMs will stop being utilized all together; even by most pre-made teams.

[topgun505]

Point and click refers to placing a lock cursor on a target and using self guided weapons. I.e. relatively low skill weapons.

Choombatta, on 03 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

What weapon system in this game is not "point and click"?