138 replies to this topic

[Kobold]

CocoaJin, on 06 December 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

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.

Other things I considered: Streaks could also require that you use the cross hair that the streaks are associated with to lock with. For example, if you're in a CN9-A or AS7-D-DC, you'd have to keep the target locked with your torso reticle. This might be a bit draconian though, but it certainly would make locking on to lights harder for many mechs. Also guys like the COM-2D who have their missile points mixed between arm and torso would have an interesting time.


Ultimately there are lots of things that COULD be done. These ideas should be explored first, then ECM looked into after. Which is why we're here!

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 02:12 AM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

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.

so it would seem that what ever mech game you play there's always going to be one weapon ruling over everything else. shame but what can ya do.

[CocoaJin]

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Other things I considered: Streaks could also require that you use the cross hair that the streaks are associated with to lock with. For example, if you're in a CN9-A or AS7-D-DC, you'd have to keep the target locked with your torso reticle. This might be a bit draconian though, but it certainly would make locking on to lights harder for many mechs. Also guys like the COM-2D who have their missile points mixed between arm and torso would have an interesting time. Ultimately there are lots of things that COULD be done. These ideas should be explored first, then ECM looked into after. Which is why we're here!

ouch, thats a bit heavy handed.


I also just realized, there has to be a maximum maneuvering rate and angle on target for the SSRMs. Right now, the interpretation regarding SSRMs never missing means they can just do whatever it takes to hit the target. I think it would better and more in line with TT if there were limits to the missile's ability to track and that the system would determine if the missile could even make the required maneuvers to intercept, if not, the missiles stay tubed....this way a target lock and trigger pull didnt auto-magically equal hits...sometimes it meant you git a buzzer and no launch.

Now, once the missile left the tube, it would hit(even if it meant giving the missile extra-maneuvering ability to compensate for target maneuvering after launch...but the initial launch check would be based on a fixed maneuvering limit for the missile. Of course, the missile cant account for obstacles, so collisions with other objects enroute to target just has to be chalked up to user error.

Frankly, nothing was more annoying than being in a high speed circle jerk with a mech that didnt even have to face you to get the lock, but even worse, could launch SSRMs perpendicular to the launch tubes so that they flew out of his arm pits and made totally impossible maneuvers, including a U-turn inside 50m, to impact behind the point in which the missiles where fired. That intercpet path should have been deemed non-viable inspite of the lock and result in the missiles never leaving the tube.

There has to be a limited envelope of viability for the SSRMs. Like the target has to be within a cone 45 degs left or right of center to launch, the launch vector and the target's vector can be opposed by more than 150-165 degs while within lets say 50-75m of the user, all while inside the cone of fire in order to launch. If you have a lock, but dont meet those requirements, the tubes dont fire.

Edited by CocoaJin, 06 December 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[Kobold]

GalaxyBluestar, on 06 December 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

so it would seem that what ever mech game you play there's always going to be one weapon ruling over everything else. shame but what can ya do.

We can aspire to something better.

[Kobold]

CocoaJin, on 06 December 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

I also just realized, there has to be a maximum maneuvering rate and angle on target for the SSRMs. Right now, the interpretation regarding SSRMs never missing means they can just do whatever it takes to hit the target. I think it would better and more in line with TT if there were limits to the missile's ability to track and that the system would determine if the missile could even make the required maneuvers to intercept, if not, the missiles stay tubed....this way a target lock and trigger pull didnt auto-magically equal hits...sometimes it meant you git a buzzer and no launch.

Now, once the missile left the tube, it would hit(even if it meant giving the missile extra-maneuvering ability to compensate for target maneuvering after launch...but the initial launch check would be based on a fixed maneuvering limit for the missile. Of course, the missile cant account for obstacles, so collisions with other objects enroute to target just has to be chalked up to user error.

This would be a great idea, however this would probably eat a lot of processor power on the part of the server. You could not do it client side, because it would be a massive, gaping security hole waiting to get hacked.

I assume the simplest plan would be to describe a "window" based on target vector, range, and angle off of cross hair in which the SRMs would allow you to fire at a locked target. It would eat some CPU power, but hopefully a bit less than actually predicting the real paths of a clump of SRMs. (Note I am not a programmer myself, so I am using some educated guesses here)


Edit: And yes my previous post was on the far end of "let's make Streaks f-ing hard to use!" The point was more just that there is a huge wide spectrum of ideas out there on how to make Streaks (and LRMs) less powerful/more balanced, without resorting to quick "fixes." Just spit-ball*ing here.

Edit 2: Really? Ball*ing was censored?

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 02:30 AM.

[Omigir]

I think this is a step in the right direction, but not far enough. I think they need to do some planning ahead and sit down and do balancing for weapons and items from the ground up. Every time they add something new in they have to always end up tweeking it. Allot. Really it jsut seems like they need to sit back down and do the math on everything again.


Great post though, agree with it whole heartedly.

[Kobold]

Omigir, on 06 December 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

I think this is a step in the right direction, but not far enough. I think they need to do some planning ahead and sit down and do balancing for weapons and items from the ground up. Every time they add something new in they have to always end up tweeking it. Allot. Really it jsut seems like they need to sit back down and do the math on everything again.


Great post though, agree with it whole heartedly.

Thanks for the support Omigir. Don't take it personally if/when you see my response to one of your recent ECM posts.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

We can aspire to something better.

well it looks like it's already happening, make equipement Compulsory to dictate battle behavior, you can't run lrm's without tag... and artimus... oh and BAP. you must have ecm to avoid, being spotted on radar and targetted by any missle. so LOS laser cannon brawl play is better? many mech chassis are looking redundant without missles being of much use. when the stalker comes who's going to run it? a man with a death wish finding a raven laughing at someone turning up on the battlefield only being able to equip a few useable lasers and a lot of junk. tag really relies on LOS and close range and it shouldn't be compulsory, if it should be then why doesn't any standard mech varient have it? because no developer of the original mech warrior intended equipment to make and break battles.

so the guidence thing? give missles the lock on albiet slower on ecm stuff and nullfiy only on the carrier not the others in the bubble. to counter an equalisier the mech must carry ONE of the following tag or BAP or artimus. otherwise wer're going to find silly builds of 10% mech chasis full of moduels.

[BigJim]

Good thread - Even if people don't always agree with the OP, if you can't respect and contribute to a decent argument then you shouldn't be on forums like these.

CocoaJin, on 06 December 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

I also just realized, there has to be a maximum maneuvering rate and angle on target for the SSRMs. Right now, the interpretation regarding SSRMs never missing means they can just do whatever it takes to hit the target. I think it would better and more in line with TT if there were limits to the missile's ability to track and that the system would determine if the missile could even make the required maneuvers to intercept, if not, the missiles stay tubed....this way a target lock and trigger pull didnt auto-magically equal hits...sometimes it meant you git a buzzer and no launch.

If you have a lock, but dont meet those requirements, the tubes dont fire.

I like your line of reasoning because Streaks are mental right now, firing out of your armpits, out the back of a cat's missile-pods, etc.. but I might advocate the way Streaks used to be in CB, which is the opposite of your suggestion.
Yeah, the SRMs staying tubed is closer to TT than just limiting the missiles' manoeuvrability, but;

* Wrestling to get a lock and then getting a "bzzzt!" no-dice signal would be more frustrating to users than a simple miss.

* Just giving the missiles a pre-determined manoeuvrability (initial firing-vector, speed, turn-radius, burn-time, etc..) and making those values properties of the missile projectile (projectile in game-engine terms) is probably much easier on the processor and server than having to do x-amount of calculations every engine tick while a lock is being maintained, and then replicate that across the client-server-client gap.


So I believe that the simple solution is best - Give the actual streak projectiles a more realistic set of values for it's manoeuvrability variables, and let them fire at any point while a lock is being maintained.

Edited by BigJim, 06 December 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[SirLANsalot]

In all reality LRM's are just fine as they are now. They can be evaded easily and people now know how to doge them since there speed is fairly slow. As for streaks why not make them TAG only weapons? Meaning someone (or yourself) MUST have a TAG on the target for streaks to gain there lock, and hit AT ALL. Keep all the other parameters normal for them, but require a TAG, aka someone must be target-painting them in order for them to fire. This would bring in the "skill" that streaks are currently missing, would require you to use a friend to Target Paint an enemy if you are in the A1 Cat (a mech that should, and dose, require teamwork to EVEN be considered "good"). Any other mech can already take care of this issue themselves as everything else can have a TAG on it.

Extend this ability to NARC as well (so the A1 COULD still do what it dose now) this would bring the skill back to the "streak kitty" as you would need to fire a dumb fire missile to even use said streaks. Again any other mech can solve this issue by just using a TAG marker, but it would bring the skill of streaks to that of what Beams are now.

[Kobold]

SirLANsalot, on 06 December 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

As for streaks why not make them TAG only weapons?

Short answer: That is a wild departure from the source material.

Longer (better) answer: The goal is to balance the equipment in a status quo, no fancy add on tech work. The functionality of streaks (or LRMs) should be relatively balanced before we start worrying about how TAG/Narc/Artemis affect them. Otherwise we are just back in the same predicament where we started, where we have a combat system which is a patchwork mess of band-aid(plural).

Also, before people jump on me with the "OMG THIS ISN"T TABLETOP!!!11!1!1oneone", note that you can still remain faithful to the spirit of the source material. In the source material (table top), streaks can be fired just fine in a one on one fight without TAG or anything else, so we should find a way to balance them in that form first.


Edit: I agree that LRMs in their current form don't bother me much when ECM isn't around, but I acknowledge that not everything feels that way. Also, I will admit that the level of effectiveness of LRMs seems to have less to do with the skill of the guy launching the LRMs than the skill of the targets. I've racked up 8-900 damage with a 2xLRM15 HBK with no problem before, which seems a *bit* silly, but to do that I needed big slow targets who stayed out in the open, for the most part.

Maybe this is ok. But enough people disagree, such that the conversation should be had.

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

There are so many things to fix.

[Black Templar]

i really like suggestions in the original post. i, for myself, still think that MW:O is in beta and under heavy development. i also never agreed upon going open beta this soon. ECM should've never been deployed with the current missile issues. i say let's try out the changes suggested in the OP and see how it works out.

[B4silisk]

First of all Kudos to Kobold for all the thinking on the subject and finally creating a "non-whining"thread about the whole topic.
I really like most of the ideas you guys are throwing around here and hope the Devs take them into consideration.
And thanks for amusing me with the strange censoring XD

[AndyHill]

Some good ideas in this thread. Earlier it has been said that the SSRMs should retain their tabletop quality of never missing. I'm not sure sticking to the TT is the best thing ever, but I would like to emphasize the difference between always hitting and never missing. Right now, the SSRMs are of the always hitting variant, which is not even true to TT and causes them to be op as well as annoying. PGI could try out different things such as limited engagement zone, perhaps a rather narrow cone in front of the 'mech and limited maneuverability for the missiles. Perhaps compensate with faster lock-on or something, but keep their overall hitting power below that of regular SRMs (meaning that a good solid series of hits with SRMs should do more damage, for example when you manage to fire skilful volleys from sweeping attack near the enemy etc.).

I think the table-top derived idea of streaks as an economical variant (in terms of weight and space for total damage done) is better than having a massively powerful guided weapon. Balancing by ECM is not an answer, I think it polarizes things too much. Depending on luck you are either useless or massively powerful in any given game the way it stands now.

Personally I think lowering the DPM of streaks is the way to go. They will still be very good weapons, because if done correctly, they will turn little tonnage into a lot of hurt, but during a relatively long time period. This way you could add lots of other weapons to your 'mech, making the streaks a good support weapon, but not really material for excessive boating.

Edited by AndyHill, 06 December 2012 - 03:38 AM.

[Hammish]

You already know I agree with you on a lot of this stuff, Kobold, so.. yeah.

I believe the most appropriate term that I personally can think of would be 'granularity'. In general terms, the game works like this:

If X is true, you can shoot the weapon, it will hit, and you will do a ton of damage.
If X is false, you cannot fire.

It is more advantageous to work toward a more granular system in which it is more like:

If X, Y and Z are true, you can fire and do a ton of damage.. but it will take effort and skill to continue making X, Y and Z true.
If X, Y and Z are false, you cannot fire.
If one of X, Y, or Z are true but the others are false, you can fire but with a reduced effect.

Adding in the additional variables is what will bring any given weapon into being viable at all tiers of play, because now anyone can pick up the weapon and at least make use of it to some degree.. but is rewarded for practicing and becoming more skillful with that weapon.

I suppose I ought to qualify X, Y and Z in terms of actual gameplay, though, and I would see it like this:

X - Is the target inside of LOS?
Y - Is the target locked up using 'R'?
Z - Is the target currently under the effects of TAG/Narc or do the launchers have Artemis 4?

In order to fire, at least X or Y must be true. For each 'true' field beyond the first, increase the agility and clustering of any incoming missiles by a set magnitude. ECM is already accounted for if you take this path, because ECM will make it far harder to make Y true, thus allowing ECM to still act as a damper on guided weapon fire (or disabling it completely if there is no LOS due to the first rule).

[wanderer]

ECM as a mitigator for guided weapons is fine. What's happening now is that ECM effectively -neutralizes- guided weapons entirely.

Streaks should be firing "dumb" under ECM, just like standard SRM 2 racks. That's how it works in TT.

LRMs should get zero benefit from TAG/NARC/Artemis on ECM'd targets. They're -designed- to function under heavy ECM, again canonically- but their "bonus" guidance systems aren't, just like Streak targeting. Reducing the range they can be targeted at, increasing lock-on time and reducing the amount of time crosshairs can be off-target before losing lock are all excellent ways to have ECM mitigate LRM fire. The binary TAG-or-nothing system that exists now is facepalm-worthy.

BAP can act to somewhat "counter" ECM, but should still be trumped by it. Say LRMs can lock at 600m instead of 450m, for example- but still have the longer lock-on and quicker loss-of-targeting. This gives systems heavily compromised by ECM a way to ease the pain without rendering ECM moot.

Edited by wanderer, 06 December 2012 - 05:33 AM.

[Sovolis]

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

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.

*SNIPPED FOR BREVITY*

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.

Great post, Kobold. You are an asset to the community.

The only thing I would like to add is another suggestion for the way SSRMs work. I don't know if this would achieve the desired result, but I think it is an idea worth exploring. As you said SSRMs should work the same as SRMs do in TT, but the problem is that the all hit all the time after lock is achieved. Would it be beneficial to rework them so that each individual missile needs to acquire it's own lock. Meaning that after I have acquired lock and fired a salvo on SSRMs I will be required to achieve lock again for a second salvo. After the second salvo is fired I will have to acquire lock a third time if I want to fire a third salvo, and so on. I imagine that if necessary we could also add in an indicator for when each successive launcher aquires lock allowing us to fire only those launchers that have gained lock. For instance; lets say I am piloting a CPLT-A1 with 6 SSRM2s and I am getting a lock on an enemy mech. Somewhere on my HUD are 6 "pips" that go from being empty to solid when each of the six launchers achieves lock. As long as a single "pip" is solid the weapon system will fire, but only the launcher that has acquired lock. In other words; if I have acquired lock and 3 "pips" are filled then only 3 of the 6 launchers on my mech will fire their missiles, or 6 missile instead of 12. Once I have fired the "pips" start filling in again at the speed of status quo lock time.

I don't know if this idea is helpful, but I am curious to get yours and other community members thought on it.

Edited by Sovolis, 06 December 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Johnathan McKenna]

Very well thought out post. I came here ready to shoot down your ideas but after reading your post I think they have a lot of merit

[Felix]