41 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

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.

[nuttycide]

Many people will probably read this and say no, but for some like me, I would welcome this with open arms. It would add a more indepth play for Lrms, I think. You can fire them indirectly, but with out any guidence for the missiles, basicly turning them into a long range srm, but just slower. Unless of course they plan on implenting this later on or even after they bring out Ecms, cause as it stands, LRMs are pretty much screwed.

[Jacmac]

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

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.

I thought this was already the case. If I get in behind the enemy line and target a mech, everyone on my team can now target that mech.

[Kobold]

I essentially agree, but I'd phrase it differently. Regarding your idea, I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I really like that you are actually focusing on the underlying status quo, rather than looking for a bandaid solution.


Ultimately it comes down to two things for me:

Quote

TL; DR-
1) Do LRMs and streaks, in the absence of ECM, work the way we want them to, and perform to the level we want them to? If no, then fix them.
2) Do we want ECM to do more than it does in TT/source material?

1) At status quo, is the LRM 20 rack performing to the level that we want.

I'd start with the premise that an LRM 20 should be roughly as dangerous as a gauss rifle. Between cluster rolls and antimissile, the damage is similar. Range is similar. The LRM20 rack weighs less, but generates more heat. The catch is that in tabletop, both have the same to hit chance at all ranges (excepting minimum ranges, and that very last hex where the gauss has a slight range advantage). One way to model this would be to give the LRMs a "dumb fire" mode that basically looks like the SRM firing, but give it a travel speed on par with the gauss.

The problem is PGI took a different route, by making them guided, so no aiming is necessary. This gave a new benefit which threw off the balance a bit. The "fix" was to give LRMs slow flight times (so people could seek cover) and wide spreads, so even a medium mech with some mobility could reduce its damage through evasive action. There have been other tweaks also of course, including LRM damage, ammo per ton, recycle times, etc.

But in the end, are you happy where they are at the status quo? If not, you might thing LRMs are underpowered compared to the other long range weapon systems. You might think they are overpowered because of how much damage you can do with limited skill application. But ultimately these concerns should be fixed at the status quo level, not by patching on a new bandaid to whatever the perceived issue is.


2) Do you believe that ECM should enforce the status quo?

In tabletop CBT play, ECM enforces the status quo. It nullifies three pieces of advanced technology: Artemis IV, Narc, and C3. All of those advanced tech grant improvements, two of them to missiles only, and one of them to everyone (but primarily helps long range units) When you use ECM, it doesn't make Artemis enhanced missiles stop working, it just makes them work like normal missiles again.

So the question is, why do we feel that ECM needs to do something to alter the original status quo? If your answer is "because I have problem X, Y, or Z with the status quo!" then you should look at point #1 of this post again. Your problem is the status quo, and therefore you should focus on that, not focus on using ECM as a bandaid.

ECM was never intended to break the basic underlying weapons, it was meant to be a counter to the newer offensive technologies that were introduced into the game around the same time.

Summary: If you have a problem with the basic functionality of LRMs or Streaks, finding them unbalanced/OP/cheese/whatever, then you should advocate for a fix to the underlying mechanic.

Edited by Kobold, 03 December 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Interesting food for thought, Mercules. I agree that LRMs aren't acting just like they would in TT, but a lot of things work differently in 1st-person vs. a 3rd-person TT game.

However, per TT, a Guardian ECM doesn't really shield units from standard LoS detection - it works to interfere with the special abilities of BAP, Artemis, C3/C3i, and Narc Beacons. Under TacOps rules, it can create "ghost targets" and act as ECCM. But completely preventing sensor acquisition was never part of its abilities. It's going to seriously screw anyone who isn't running in voice-coms, not just the LRM users.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/ECM_Suite
http://www.sarna.net...rdian_ECM_Suite

[Kobold]

Solis Obscuri, on 03 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

It's going to seriously screw anyone who isn't running in voice-coms, not just the LRM users.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns that is often overlooked. Organized teams, or even 8v8s made up of random people on teamspeak will coordinate. Guy #1 will say "Hey I have an LRM boat, can someone bring TAG or ECM to counter?" It will all get worked out.

The people who will have the biggest problem will be the puglets.

[Fajther]

I can see direct fire coming to lrms in the near future. Probably a little while after ecm is released PGI has been desperate to make this as much of a team games as possible. Everything they have done that is different from the game mechanic that we are used to (not being able to see behind you, lrm targeting though other people, tighter turning radius for smaller mechs, ect) points to them forcing a kind of team play dynamic ecm in itself is forcing another level of team play to happen. Lrms are now forced to rely on spotters to fire. they can't do it on their own. I believe that is why they are doing it this way.

[TruePoindexter]

I kinda wish LRM's had allowed for angle firing like they did in MW3. In MW3 you could control the arc of the missiles by changing your direction of fire allowing you to toss them over obstacles as needed while flat firing them when appropriate. This added a "skill" factor to what is otherwise a lock and fire weapon. That is not to say that MWO LRM's take no skill - it takes some skill choosing the correct firing lines/vantage points and being able to determine if your missiles are hitting or missing - just that the actual act of firing is monotonous.

[Sovolis]

Question for you Mercules. If the goal is to get LRMs operating more like they do in TT, what happens after a LOS only lock has been gained and the missiles have been launched? Can lock be broken? If it is like TT lock should remain no matter what. This would be a move away from the staus quo where lock must be maintained. Wouldn't this require a reworking of missiles back to before active lock needed to be maintained?

[SineCurve]

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

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".

I believe this IS actually the case at the moment. I can dumbfire LRMs without a lock and they more or less impact wherever I'm pointing my targeting reticle, provided it is within the 1000m range.

Edited by SineCurve, 03 December 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I kinda wish LRM's had allowed for angle firing like they did in MW3. In MW3 you could control the arc of the missiles by changing your direction of fire allowing you to toss them over obstacles as needed while flat firing them when appropriate. This added a "skill" factor to what is otherwise a lock and fire weapon. That is not to say that MWO LRM's take no skill - it takes some skill choosing the correct firing lines/vantage points and being able to determine if your missiles are hitting or missing - just that the actual act of firing is monotonous.

I miss the SRMs from MW3 - those were fun! I was pretty disappointed MWO went with the dumbfire MW2/MW4 SRMs instead of the guided TT/MW3 kind.

[Mercules]

SineCurve, on 03 December 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I believe this IS actually the case at the moment. I can dumbfire LRMs without a lock and they more or less impact wherever I'm pointing my targeting reticle, provided it is within the 1000m range.

While this is true, as Kobold pointed out the Time to Target is very long for LRMs. Were there two modes one that simply fired LRMs on a flat trajectory but much faster and one that lobbed LRMs to a locked on target we would have a much better mechanic akin to TT. Right now the spread is fairly significant for "dumbfired" LRMs and they take so long it is unlikely that an LRM20 would hit with even half of it's missiles.

[SineCurve]

Hmm, right. It WOULD be nice if, say, you could "charge" your LRMs to go faster, with a flat trajectory, but with a drop in range (missiles burn fuel faster for increased acceleration). You could stand off and saturate an ECM bubble with LRMS from afar.

I cannot even begin to imagine the outrage in the forums if this was really implemented, though.

[Gristle]

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....

You do not completely understand how LRMs work in MWO. They DO have a direct fire mode. Your rockets will impact wherever your target reticule points as long as you do not have a target lock when launching. I don't often play a LRM equipped mech, but when I do I frequently take advantage of this to lay down suppresive fire, or make mechs I don't have lock on take cover.

Edited by Gristle, 03 December 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[topgun505]

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.

LRMs with ballistic terminal trajectory.
LRMs with huge damage
Streaks with 90+ degree off center firing

etc.

A HUGE number of people were screaming when LRM damage hit 2.0 per missile then it got nerfed down. But recently it was upped back up to 1.8. That isn't a whole lot less than the 2.0 people were screaming about.

While the LRMs may not be implemented correctly per the TT rules, I fear that to do as you implemented will once again bring back the days of LRM-warrior. Considering we have seen this before on several occasions after previous LRM-buffs I don't think this fear is unjustified.

People just can't seem to resist the siren call of "Put the circle on the box and fire to win". These kinds of weapon systems should not be 'rewarded' for their ease of use. They should remain in the support role. Adding more power back to them will once again push them to the forefront.

Edited by topgun505, 03 December 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[Chemie]

I could be wrong in reading the ECM summary but I believe it effectively removes LRM and SSRM from the game (20 m radius woul dbe impossible to stay in with streaks and the LRMs are totally useless unless tagged target). In fact, you cannot even "r" up a tagret to call its designation (target alpha) if I read it right.

[Mercules]

The thing is that as it currently stands, ECM will have an unintentional side effect of making LRMs extremely difficult to use. Not impossible to use but so convoluted to use that PUGs might as well not use them. Many of us that run in Premades will have less difficulty, but others will find them as much liability as use.

Gristle, on 03 December 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

You do not completely understand how LRMs work in MWO. They DO have a direct fire mode. Your rockets will impact wherever your target reticule points as long as you do not have a target lock when launching. I don't often play a LRM equipped mech, but when I do I frequently take advantage of this to lay down suppresive fire, or make mechs I don't have lock on take cover.

As I stated, you are unlikely to hit with even half launched missiles... if you hit because of travel times. This might work to saturate a close area or to launch endlessly on a target area, but is not akin to TT where you can specifically target a given mech at range and put about 3/4ths of your LRMs on that target.

[Mercules]

Chemie, on 03 December 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

I could be wrong in reading the ECM summary but I believe it effectively removes LRM and SSRM from the game (20 m radius woul dbe impossible to stay in with streaks and the LRMs are totally useless unless tagged target). In fact, you cannot even "r" up a tagret to call its designation (target alpha) if I read it right.

...and that is the exact issue. That isn't a horrible thing except for the fact the LRMs are, more or less, requiring you to be able to use the "Target Lock" "r" to effectively use them. Without the "r" they are a much worse and more expensive LBX10 which many people don't like to use.

[Orkhepaj]

[REDACTED]

Edited by miSs, 03 December 2012 - 09:01 PM.
does not contribute to discussion

[Mercules]

Sovolis, on 03 December 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Question for you Mercules. If the goal is to get LRMs operating more like they do in TT, what happens after a LOS only lock has been gained and the missiles have been launched? Can lock be broken? If it is like TT lock should remain no matter what. This would be a move away from the staus quo where lock must be maintained. Wouldn't this require a reworking of missiles back to before active lock needed to be maintained?

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.

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

[REDACTED]

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