Jump to content

Essay: Fix Guided Weapons, Don't Add A Band-Aid


138 replies to this topic

#1 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:02 AM

Foreword for Garth: You had to put up with my ECM question(rant) in a NGNG podcast. You've seen so many posts from me about the topic, I'm sure. Sorry about all that. I'm giving up my ECM crusade and following my own advice: Focus on the real problem.

TL; DR summary - This post is about fixing the underlying mechanics of guided weapons in MWO. All this talk about ECM overlooks the fact that many people have problems with how Streaks and LRMs function. Rather than use ECM as a band aid for the underlying problem, why don't we address the issue of the missiles? This post is long. Very long. Fair warning.

We will be only talking about a status quo world to start with. This means TAG, Narc, Artemis, ECM, etc get addressed AFTER addressing the underlying mechanics.

Step 1: Premises

Premise 1: Many people think LRMs provide too much benefit for the level of skill required.

Premise 2: Many people think Streaks provide too much benefit for the skill required AND the tonnage required.


Background: Know where we came from to know where we are going

As way of background, lets note the functionality of LRMs and streaks in tabletop.

In tabletop, all weapons require to-hit rolls. The LRM, gauss rifle, PPC, and ER large laser all have the same chance to hit at functionally similar ranges. Streak SRMs have the same chance to hit as normal SRMs or medium lasers, at the same ranges. When LRMs do hit, they hit for a variable amount of damage. Streaks, weighing more than standard SRMs have two benefits in tabletop. First, when they hit, every missile hits (as opposed to the partial damage dealt by normal SRMs and by LRMs). Second, when they miss, they do not waste ammo or generate heat. Damage, tonnage, ammo, and heat is relatively balanced based on these assumptions.

PGI changed some of these assumptions.

For LRMs, the lock on feature made them much more likely to hit (massively more likely, in that they hit all the time). There is at least a slight trade off, in that the very slow missile travel time means the target of the missile has time to seek cover. However despite the slow travel time, it still requires very less effort to hit someone who is walking in the open with significant numbers of missiles compared to hitting them with consistent AC2 fire, or holding a large laser beam on them, for example. If you are firing at someone who is currently brawling, you will get very consistent damage without having to aim, and you barely even risk hitting your own teammate.

This is the source of Premise 1.

For SSRMs, not only do you not have to aim as much as SRMs, but your target for the most part cannot even try to evade your shots. The current issue of all the missiles hitting the torso is said to be being addressed by the devs. However even without that, while it is correct that Streaks are supposed to hit with every missile every time they connect, we are still in a situation where the streaks are hitting every time the pilot pulls the trigger, which is far, far more powerful than any other current weapon. This goes even beyond the LRMs, which can at least be evaded... kind of.

This is the source of Premise 2.


Goal 1: Add skill to guided missiles.

Both Premise 1 and Premise 2 address the issue that guided weapons are just too easy to use. While one way to fix this would be to simply reduce the damage of the weapons until one can consistently do more damage with the "skilled weapons," this is not the preferred method.

Because the skill level of the player base varies widely, it is nearly impossible to fairly balance a "static, easy damage" weapon against weapons whose damage output varies with skill. If they are balanced for a low ELO player to do better with aimed weapons, then they will be basically worthless in games between skilled players. If they are balanced to do ok damage compared to that dished out by skilled players with lasers or ballistics, then they will do far too much damage in the hands of newbies against other ELO matched newbies.

The goal should be to instead add more skill to the use of missiles first.

Why are guided weapons easy to use right now? Right now, an LRM boat's cross hairs don't have to stay on the enemy mech, they only need to stay near the enemy mech. Once lock is attained by an LRM boat or streak user, the crosshairs again only have to stay "near" the target.

PGI has already shown us that they can do lots of things with how lock ons and missile paths work, and they can do it dynamically while missiles are in the air. Variables such as lock on time, missile path, and missile spread are all modifiable by various pieces of equipment. I would like to see one other thing modifiable as well, if the code does not already support it: angle of lock

By adjusting these all depending on conditions in play, you can create escalating difficulty in using guided weapons, depending on the factors present. I propose a series of possible ways to improve the level of skill required in guided missiles in a status quo world. The presence of positive influencing factors (TAG, Narc, Artemis) can improve performance, allowing lower skilled players to perform easier, and rewarding teamwork. These ideas can be used all together or in part, but would work best together as part of an entire systemic overhaul.

Here is an example of one way to do it:
  • Case 1 - Non-targeted locking: Allow locking onto and firing of weapons at targets that are not targeted, but to which the launcher has line of sight. This will be the baseline setting. This lock on should take longer than standard to lock on, require that the launcher's cross hairs stay completely on the target at all time, should be lost as soon as the cross hairs move off the target.


  • Case 2 - Line of Sight, Targeted locking: When firing at a target which the launcher has line of sight and had the target selected, lock on should occur faster than in Case 1, but still slower than the current default lock speed. Further, while we may wish to not require the cross hairs to be directly on the target, I would advocate a "lock angle" that is smaller than what we have currently in game, to make it marginally harder to maintain lock on a moving target, especially while moving yourself.


  • Case 3 - No Line of Sight, Targeted locking: This is our indirect fire mode. It should be somewhere between Case 1 and Case 2. It should be less effective than when you can see the target. Possible solutions would be a longer lock on time, quicker loss of lock, and wider missile spread.
The result of these changes would be that LRMs are harder to use at longer range, harder to quickly get fire on a target unless you have a very quick aim, and would be less effective when fired indirectly, shifting the risk-reward ratio.



Once we have established a base line, status quo world that requires more skill to use LRMs, we can then add the positive influencing factor equipment to make significant improvements. Currently Narc is basically junk, TAG is ok but not great (current ECM functionality aside), and Artemis is decent, but a luxury. We can change this, to reward people who try harder to use teamwork.

Narc would allow for targeting (via "R") targets that are either outside of normal targeting range or to which the launcher or teammates do not have line of sight. TAG could significant decrease the lock on time or increase the "lock angle" for the cross hair. Artemis could significantly tighten the groupings (as it does now).

Now we have a situation where LRMs are harder to use effectively at a status quo level, and we have positive influencing factors that are much better than they were before. So now we can look at ECM. In TT, ECM blocks Narc, Artemis, and C3 (no effect on TAG). Because we've added TAG functionality to LRMs, however, lets let ECM block that too. Now ECM blocks all the fancy offensive technology that makes LRMs work better, but it is no longer a game breaker. Why not? Because we can still fire LRMs at enemies when we have direct line of sight! ECM has brought us back to the status quo world, LRMs can still be used, but require more effort.

Many of these principles involving lock on time, angle of lock, and quickly losing lock apply to streaks as well. If you allow streaks to slowly lock on enemies which you don't have targeted, and have them quickly lose locks, they suddenly become functional in an ECM world if you still want to "cloak" mechs in the bubble. Are they as functional? No, but they can at least be be used if you have the skill to hold the target.


Goal 2: Reduce effectiveness of Streaks.

However, even applying the above rationale to Streaks may not be enough. Consider for the moment that a Streak Cat carries 6 SSRM2s, a total of 9 tons of weapons. They are a devastating force once they have lock, because it is trivial for the pilot to keep firing and keep hitting. As we stated before, in the source material (TT), Streaks are supposed to be as hard to hit a target with as SRMs. Here we clearly aren't just looking to add skill to the weapon, but we want a straight nerf.

Step 1 is already going to be done by the devs, which is to have the missiles target components at random. This will alleviate the "all damage to the CT" problem completely, but it won't change the fact that, in comparison to SRMs, Streaks hit their target far more often (in that they hit all the time). For fast moving mechs, this is a much bigger issue, because even with spread damage, a Jenner will quickly die even to 12 normal tubes of SRMs if they never miss.

Step 2 should be reducing the chances a Streak user has to hit the target! The simplest solution here is to tighten the lock on parameters significantly. As we saw in the LRM example, we could use a combination of increased lock on time as well as losing lock as soon as the crosshairs are off the target. All of a sudden we've created a situation where it takes much more effort on the part of the launcher to hold the target, even if the actual firing of the missiles is easy.

Other options for dealing with streaks: Notably I have ignored a few options for "balancing" streaks, such as heat or recycle time. Part of this is for canon reasons (a Streak 2 should not generate more heat then a standard SRM2), but also because, effectiveness wise, heat and recycle time are not good balancing factors unless the only thing you are trying to adjust is DPS. If you can kill someone with one alpha of a massed weapon (see: Vulture A, 60 ton clan mech with six SSRM6 launchers), then it won't matter what the cooldown time or heat load is.


Conclusion:

Even if you don't like my proposed solutions, the point of this thread is to focus on the underlying issues (functionality of Streaks and LRMs), not to argue about ECM. ECM arguments should happen, yes, but only AFTER we come to a consensus on what should be done with Streaks and LRMs in the absence of ECM.

Please remain respectful of one another when posting in this thread. Ad hominem attacks on people who choose to use specific weapons, or play in specific styles are unhelpful, as they distract from legitimate concerns and make it less likely that anyone from PGI takes a thread seriously.

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 03:10 AM.


#2 Jim Elliot

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:04 AM

band what? i cant even guess that one

Edited by Jim Elliot, 06 December 2012 - 01:04 AM.


#3 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:07 AM

View PostJim Elliot, on 06 December 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

band what? i cant even guess that one


Argh... Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome... the result of getting the Human Immuno-deficiency Virus. I'll edit to make it readable.


Edit: Apparently I can't edit topic titles. Kind of which I knew that one in the filter before I posted it.

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 01:08 AM.


#4 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:09 AM

good post and I like your sig->Using now to spread our word !

Edited by JudgeDeathCZ, 06 December 2012 - 01:09 AM.


#5 Jim Elliot

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:10 AM

lol why is ai ds censored?

Edited by Jim Elliot, 06 December 2012 - 01:10 AM.


#6 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:15 AM

View PostJudgeDeathCZ, on 06 December 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

good post and I like your sig->Using now to spread our word !


Ironically, I just changed my sig, in part because I felt it was too combative. I want to push for a solution, not just sit here and antagonize people.

I still don't like the current implementation of ECM, as it massively screws puggers, and it is wildly more powerful than the tabletop implementation (in that it not only counter acts advanced tech, but also counters the basic weapons). However I'd rather push for a revamp of the underlying systems, THEN address ECM.

#7 Apoc1138

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,708 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:19 AM

it's advanced immunodeficiency syndrome
the short form is censored because children (or those with the intellect of) have a tendency to start throwing it at people as an insult when they realise that the F word is censored

#8 Jim Elliot

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:23 AM

i cant believe people would use is like that - that just [edited] messed up.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 09 December 2012 - 01:28 PM.
edited per CoC


#9 RainbowToh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 753 posts
  • LocationLittle Red Dot, SouthEastAsia

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:23 AM

Band-A.i.d.s I think. I think he meant quick fixes. He is proposing good solutions rather than quick fixes that doesnt solve anything in the long run

Edited by RainbowToh, 06 December 2012 - 01:24 AM.


#10 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:27 AM

Now that we've once again realized that this forum still has a filter that is more reactionary than a modern day helicopter parent, can we get back on task? :D

#11 Jim Elliot

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:31 AM

yeah good post man

i haz ai.ds you ******* -1

#12 Relic1701

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • LocationDying at the end of your cheese build!

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:32 AM

Have to use the 'full' editor to edit the title (I think B) )...maybe change it to 'don't add a band-aid', might get round the censorship. :D

Edited by Relic1701, 06 December 2012 - 01:33 AM.


#13 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:36 AM

View PostRelic1701, on 06 December 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Have to use the 'full' editor to edit the title (I think B) )...maybe change it to 'don't add a band-aid', might get round the censorship. :D


Good call, fixed!

Now can we talk about some LRMs and streaks?

#14 Relic1701

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,197 posts
  • LocationDying at the end of your cheese build!

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:37 AM

Sure...go ahead :D

In that regard, I've been quite ill recently so not had a chance to really test things out (only played a handful of games since the patch), and I haven't really used missiles since closed beta, but I have been on the receiving end!

However, I did read a very good post (I will link it when I find it), about 'boating' streaks, and using some form of 'Target Interface Circuitry' or 'TIC' that was (originally I believe) used in the TT Solaris VII ruleset, or a variation on it's theme.

Basic premise was that if you were using weapons that 'locked on' to a target before firing, the more weapons on that 'TIC' (or as we know it 'Weapon Group'), the longer it actually took to lock on. This would affect mechs like the A1 which can mount 6 of them, but would not adversely affect a mech mounting only 1 or 2 launchers.
eg. 1 launcher takes 3 secs to lock on, 2 would take 4, 3 would take 5 etc.

A system like this would require skill to use effectively, as you could get round some of the problems by putting the launchers on different weapon groups, and would avoid (for the most part) the 'lock on, hold LMB, win' situation.

As to my view on other things as they stand, I will have to play a bit more and get a more enlightened view on the situation before commenting. B)

Edited by Relic1701, 06 December 2012 - 01:55 AM.


#15 Mathmatics

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 275 posts
  • LocationDetroit

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:48 AM

Great post. PGI should hire you. Seriously or at least pick this post apart for our game to improve.

#16 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:49 AM

LRMs are basically useless now -.-
I want to implement ECM how it is in MW4 mektek and/or in MW:LL...which means its by TT rules mostly

#17 GalaxyBluestar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,748 posts
  • Location...

Posted 06 December 2012 - 01:57 AM

i gave up using lrms long ago the only reason i have one in the garage is so i can get the mechtree perks for my sniping awesome. why did i give upon them? cause in mw3 targeting was too easy you just let the radar pick out the target, get a lock on and fire! as the missles have auto homing you could do something else whilst the target has to out run or duck for cover.

now i don't remember everyone being up in arms about lrm's being a skilless weapons and biased back then so why is it that when you have to sit like a goose holding the reticle over for the whole duration to keep them homing but "whoops the target blipped out running behind the many buildings for cover the homings lost" crash into the ground scenario that is so common with lrm's in this game it is being discussed as an too easy to use weapon!? they're horrible to use in this game compared to old mech warrior games and i'm surprised people do use it. it's so much easier to ignore radar and just play this game like any other run about LOS shooter.

i'm not having a hard time adapting like some incompetance you see out there but trying to make people awear that it's better to make this more like a mech warrior game. where lock ons can be viable and not serious hit and miss dead weights on the brawler oriented battlefield. also to encourage some radar decision making instead of always just hunting as a pack and ambushing especially now they can't see me in an ecm bubble like how most teams play now. as it is this game is like killzone or something without the respawns, except that killzone offered more oppotunities for all varity of weapons where this game keeps going from extreme to extreme.

#18 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:01 AM

View PostRelic1701, on 06 December 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

Sure...go ahead :D

In that regard, I've been quite ill recently so not had a chance to really test things out (only played a handful of games since the patch), and I haven't really used missiles since closed beta, but I have been on the receiving end!

However, I did read a very good post (I will link it when I find it), about 'boating' streaks, and using some form of 'Target Interface Circuitry' or 'TIC' that was (originally I believe) used in the TT Solaris VII ruleset, or a variation on it's theme.

Basic premise was that if you were using weapons that 'locked on' to a target before firing, the more weapons on that 'TIC' (or as we know it 'Weapon Group'), the longer it actually took to lock on. This would affect mechs like the A1 which can mount 6 of them, but would not adversely affect a mech mounting only 1 or 2 launchers.
eg. 1 launcher takes 3 secs to lock on, 2 would take 4, 3 would take 5 etc.

A system like this would require skill to use effectively, as you could get round some of the problems by putting the launchers on different weapon groups, and would avoid (for the most part) the 'lock on, hold LMB, win' situation.



This doesn't address it at its lowest level though. Compare a single hypothetical SSRM4 (3 tons when it is eventually added) to a single SRM 6, both mounted in a JR7-K, and fighting each other. Your solution doesn't change the fact that the JR7-K with the single SSRM4 has a massive advantage over the SRM6.

For comparison, in tabletop a single inner sphere SRM 6 is 59 BV, identical to that of a single inner sphere SSRM 4, also 59 BV. Being the same tonnage (and in MWO terms, using the same hard point), the goal should be to make them roughly equal in usefulness, one for one.

#19 Kobold

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,930 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:04 AM

View PostGalaxyBluestar, on 06 December 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

i gave up using lrms long ago the only reason i have one in the garage is so i can get the mechtree perks for my sniping awesome. why did i give upon them? cause in mw3 targeting was too easy you just let the radar pick out the target, get a lock on and fire! as the missles have auto homing you could do something else whilst the target has to out run or duck for cover.


Part of this was because in MW3 and MW4, there were many other FAR SCARIER weapons out there. When you have ankle-biting small laser Shadowcats or ERLL jump-snipers head-shotting everyone, LRMs kind of get forgotten about.

#20 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:07 AM

I like it all. the only other thing I'd add is that the SSRMs should require a new lock each time you press and release the fire button or after each tube fires if you press and hold/chain fire.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users