138 replies to this topic

[Jot Nara]

OP, I came in this thread ready to scream, "NO, I've been having much more fun with ECM and missiles are fine!" at you. But then I read... good show, sir. If what you propose were to implemented, I think it would be just as much fun and more tactical at the same time.

[Mercules]

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

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.

Does this mean I got you thinking about ~WHY~ ECM was overpowered? I am hoping my previous post was the inspiration for this train of thought. You obviously thought a bit more deeply than I did and stated it elegantly. This is exactly why I brought this up.

There are a lot of easy fixes to tone down the power of ECM out there. The most simple is to double lock times instead of not allowing targeting but I believe that removes one of the true values of ECM, the fact that it "hides" mechs. It doesn't really hide them as you can still visually spot them but it should scramble your sensors to the point where you have to use the visual spotting and that is what it does right now. That is not beyond the scope of it's concept.

As I stated and Kobold has vastly expanded upon, LRMs are not implemented correctly. You should not need to first lock on sensors and then establish a target based off that lock. Right now if you see a mech but it is beyond your sensors (800m without extra equipment) then you can not lock on to fire. The counter balance to them homing, that they move slow, makes it almost impossible to hit someone at 1k meters without locking on.

I really like Kobold's ideas for implementation with the variable levels of weapon lock for the LRMs. It makes having a spotter valuable to fire at deep ranges but not necessary and also gives you a route to fire upon a mech you can see but not target because it is protected by ECM.


The Streak ideas are solid as well, especially if we do as Sovolis and others have stated and require "re-locking" after a tube had fired. You could still chain fire and if you could hold your reticle on target you would reacquire lock on the first tube by the time the last tube fired, but you would have to be more skilled to do so.

Lets make sure the Developers see this thread and see if we can't get more of the community interested in this discussion. This, in my opinion, is what the game needs. Not a "Buff this.... now nerf that..." see-saw but a paradigm shift that understands the fundamental problem and fixes that.

[F lan Ker]

S!

Very interesting thread and good thoughts. Sovolis's idea of individual launchers/missiles gaining a lock before firing would be pretty much in line with TT/BT description. It would pretty much put an end of "sure fire" SSRM spam we had before ECM. Add to this the dumb fire option to SSRM under ECM with one difference to SRM, they would still fly straight as they do now, not a "gaggle salvo" like SRM. Makes it harder to hit, but you still can with good aim.

LRMs you can still use under ECM, even though it is a lot harder. But if a group of Mechs are in a tight pattern under this "ECM umbrella" and not moving then dumb firing into them will score hits and make them move as any damage is damage and you should react to it.

Anyways, good OP post and good responses.

[Joseph Mallan]

I saw good use of LRMs last night. Scouts came at us and turned their ECMs over to ECCM. Then it began to rain! heavy and hard. Well used scouting and application of Countermeasures. Got our Ashes hammered cause we didn't expect Missiles!

Figured this would happen, just not as soon as it did. Tip my hat to you gentlemen.

[Sovolis]

This is in reply to Mercules' post #42 of this thread (mobile Firefox wont opperate the reply function). I regards to only the range limiting of ECM; I would love to see this executed as a very GXP and Cbill expensive module, maybe for scout chassis only, in the future. The ability for light mechs to become sensor invisible for spotting purposes really excites me, but i think currently it means most every match is either a brawl or base rush.

Since people are refering to my idea a little; driving to work I realized that to some extent it is the same as increasing cycle times, but I think the idea may be able to be polished into something very cool

[Kaldor]

Kobold,

I dont agree with everything you say but you raise some excellent points about guided weapons.

SSRMs:

In their current form they are completely overpowered. Quick lock time, never miss, and fire at impossible angles. Right now, and his is especially evident in a light on light fight, whoever has the most SSRM tubes will win 90% of the time. Ive beat a Jenner D with 2 SSRMs with my Jenner F/K without SSRMs, but holy crap I get beat up. The other guy isnt out piloting me, hes just firing the SSRMs when the cooldown is up. Add 6 SSRMs to a Cat A1 and the problem becomes even worse because they can easily abuse game mechanics to stay out of trouble and I dont care what anyone says, a well piloted Streakboat can kill any mech and is quite a PITA to kill at times. Using 2-3 mechs to kill one is not balance!

However, they are not going away, but they need some adjustment. They need to require a lock on target until the missile hits the target much like current LRMs are. Tightening up the lock so you cant get so far off target may be the solution. They need to set a firing arc on them, in other words no firing and then basically having the missiles fly behind you to hit your target. A cone of around 120 degrees seems fair to me. This right here is a departure from TT, but a necessary one. This will give pilots at least a chance to dodge the missiles.

LRMs:

Right now I feel LRMs are as balanced as they can possibly be. Yes, they can do alot of damage and are easily boated, but not without penalties. Ive run every Catapult missile build you can think of, as well as a few others. But generally they are almost always a tradeoff between LRM damage and the ability to protect your self. The best LRM build Ive run pre ECM was an A1 with 2 LRM 15 and 4 SSRMs. Decent LRM ability and 4 SSRMs to chase off squirrels.

They are most effective when used with a spotter with TAG as they should be, this is afterall a team game and teamwork is OP. Artemis is a vast improvement for hitting fast movers and concentrating damage, but you pay the price for it in the upgrade itself and expensive ammo. You have to hold lock on a target for the entire flight of the missiles, which when shooting at 900 meters takes an eternity. LRMs are easily dodged just by stepping behind cover that is taller than your mech.

My personal feelings is that the days of static spamming of 2k LRMs from 800-900 meters is over. They are too avoidable now, and thats fine. Ive found the best way to play an LRM boat is to fire from 300-500 meters and constantly be on the move. This gives the target alot less time to react and less time for AMS to shoot down missiles. It also gives you the advantage of your team to support you. The other added bonus is that often teams will tunnel vision on the LRM boat thinking its an easy kill but then get torn apart by your brawlers as they run by. To say that this play style is easymode is a falacy. You have to be paying attention just like any other mech or you will be lunch.

In a competitive setup I dont think dedicated LRM boats are completely viable without support on both ends. They require a TAGger as higher skill players will not constantly constantly expose themselves to LRM fire. However, I can see that if you can get your team to buy into it, and support them, a couple of dedicated LRM boats could really put a hurting on the other team. Campers that are shooting lanes are often static and dont move around alot as they figure they have a position of power. The catch here is that you need to have very good light pilots who can spot and TAG for you without getting owned.

ECM:

This is a game changer to be sure. Is it a bit OP? Maybe, especially when stacked up without enough counter ECM. This is the single most important thing when facing any guided weapon system. TAG is the only counter at the moment. I think we will see ECM use fall off a bit, but from this point forward a DDC and a light with ECM are going to be nearly mandatory on any 8 man.

BAP:

For all intensive purposes, its worthless in my mind. Yes, you get a few benefits from it, but against ECM its worthless. Definitely needs a boost to be more effective and offer another counter ECM option.

AMS:

Do I run AMS on any mech that cannot equip ECM? Damn right I do! 3-4 mechs creating an AMS envelope are great for shooting down LRMs and a lesser extent SSRM/SRMs. They maybe need a slight tweak to make them more effective against SSRMs and SRMs though.

TAG:

They have stated that they will be increasing TAG range to 750m. Great change in my mind. It still requires LOS on target, but should help against the ECM horde right now. Should help bring LRMs back into the game as well. Will require teamwork, but once again, Teamwork is OP.

[w0rm]

Excellent post Kobold.

[Mercules]

Kaldor,

Yes, all of this is true, but there has been something bugging me about LRMs since Closed Beta. I didn't realize it until ECM pointed out that you have to "lock target" with sensors before you can lock on to fire. I used BAP and the module to extend that range so one of my mechs that uses LRMs could fire based off it's own targets right out to it's max range. That is what lead me to think about it. LRMs are not correct and ECM just point out where that disconnect is.

Kobold's ideas bring skill back into LRMs without taking them out of the reach of PUGgers. Teams are always better and teamwork will win out, but we do have to consider that PUGs will make up many of this game's players until Community Warfare and maybe even after. We need to make the game interesting for them as well.

[ScientificMethod]

Kobold, I'm sorry that you've had such a rough time with things. I've loved every post of yours I have seen on this topic. You make your points far more eloquently than I could and even have better suggestions for a fix. Ecm and guided weapons have me enjoying this game less and less. I kind of regret my founder's purchase at this point.

[Mordin Ashe]

Agreed. I don't have time for more structured answer, but I'd like to point out one thing. From time to time I still like to play MW4:Mercs and troll around with LRM mechs. The reason is the aiming mechanics - the missiles impact is concentrated around where you "point" at the enemy Mech, which makes them rewarding and engaging weapon. I wish MWO LRMs were close to that in fun factor ...

[Imagine Dragons]

Dear diety-of-your-choice...

PLEASE make this happen...

[Kobold]

Kaldor, on 06 December 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

ECM:

This is a game changer to be sure. Is it a bit OP? Maybe, especially when stacked up without enough counter ECM. This is the single most important thing when facing any guided weapon system. TAG is the only counter at the moment. I think we will see ECM use fall off a bit, but from this point forward a DDC and a light with ECM are going to be nearly mandatory on any 8 man.

Franly my absolute biggest complaints about ECM are twofold.

First: Inability to achieve weapon lock while inside an ECM field needs to go. Period. It isn't fun, and binary "your weapon works / lolnope!" isn't a very good way to "balance" something. So the goal was to make streaks (as they are the primary victim of this feature) not need this as a form of balance.

Second: The inability to fire missiles effectively at all into an ECM bubble is a giant nerf to missiles that again, probably wasn't necessary. If we want to keep hiding people from sensors at longer range, then give us a way to effectively fire missiles at enemies that we can't target. This requires changing the underlying functionality of missiles.


As for inspiration for this thread, a lot of it just came from engaging in the same futile discussion over and over again. I kept telling people "if you don't like missiles, then how would you fix them?" When I realized I felt streaks were overpowered, then I was just as guilty about not starting the missile thread.

[Tice Daurus]

I'd love to see Paul's thoughts on this to see what he thinks of this....

[Walk]

Props to OP for a well thought out and written post.

Plus I Like your solution.

[Imagine Dragons]

Tice Daurus, on 06 December 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

I'd love to see Paul's thoughts on this to see what he thinks of this....

Please be Paul, and not Mat...

[RedMercury]

Edit: moved to own new thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...lrms-and-ssrms/

Edited by RedMercury, 06 December 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

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

Your point? This is a GAME that is BASED on the TT. It will not, nor EVER BE, the TT as such you can use the TT rules as a guideline more then actual rules. So when you do that you can then twak X weapon system and Y system ect to balance the game, till such a time that happens, we are going to have major imbalances. As we are working with a real time based game, and not some 5 min turn with dice that makes it random if we miss/hit or even crit. Case in point here is Warhammer 40,000 and its PC games, Dawn of War. Those games are very very different then the actual TT and as such the guns are diffrent too. A lazcannon in 40k TT can, and usually will, wipe out another tank in one shot, in DoW the lazcannon doesn't do a whole lot, it dose damage but won't kill a person, much less a tank, in one go. Another point is the Bolter, a gun that in TT can't even hurt a tank, but in DoW it can.

So you can see here if those cannons and bolters were TT values, that game would of been broken from the start, but Relic didn't do that and instead used the source material as a guideline. PGI needs to do the same here with MWO, BT and Warhammer both have the same age as eachother as they both started in the 80's (Warhammer started in '85 and 40k in '87). So, as such, they both have the same massive followings from players who have been in each game from the beginning.

Kobold, on 06 December 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

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.

Those people that are like that I call the purists, and there are very few of them, there just very loud. Those Purists need to **** and go play MW:T which will be the game they are looking for, or just go and play the TT itself or megamech. This game has the Mechwarrior Title on it, no where dose it say Battletech.

[Vrekgar]

OP, I like the cut of your jib. This gels well with my thoughts on how to make guided weapons better.

:LRMs:

Give launchers 3 modes to switch through. For simplicitys sake, mode 2 is basicly what we have now with a little range cut off.

• Mode 1: Direct fire source guided. Missiles ripple fire instead of volley fire. Can only have one flight of missiles going per launcher. Missiles travel directly towards where your cursor is aiming, the effect would be similar to guiding a rocket launcher in Halflife. Missiles fly faster than current missiles and have the full 1000m range to fly.
  
• Mode 2: Medium angle Indirect. Missiles fire in volleys. Moderate arc and flight speed. Can have multiple flights in air. Range reduced to account for height of arc to around 850m. Requires a lock to guide to targets, otherwise dumbfire launches towards the cursor and does not alter course.
  
• Mode 3: High angle Indirect. Missiles fire in volleys. VERY high arc but low ascent speed. Can have multiple flights in air. Range reduced to 500m. Requires a lock to guide to targets, otherwise dumbfire launches towards cursor and does not alter course. Due to slow speed in air they are more susceptable to AMS interception.

This will give you the ability to skillfully guide a flight of missiles to a target at range, but the longer the range, the lower the dps is. It also makes them useful at short range, and even when operating in an ECM bubble. You also get to use a high angle mode to operate in urban areas or high cover zones, provided your not shooting with ECM present, or heavy AMS cover.

[Asmudius Heng]

Good thread is good.

I think i have proposed a similar LRM fix at least half a dozen times in multiple threads in fact - though i think i took direct and indirect fire modes to more extremes.

The basic point is, those that see ECM as a counter to guided weapons need to look at the reason guided weapons were such a problem in the first place.

Quite frankly i never had a problem with LRMs. Cover + AMS shields did quite well but when caught out they hurt - as they should.

SSRMs BOATED were the real issue. A single or double of SSRMs never seemed that dire.

Fix the root cause of the issues not put another HARD counter on top. Everything should be viable at all times - but equipment and tactics should mitigate that power somewhat not destroy it or people will simply stop using it if it is too difficult to do.

Make lock on weapons have more of an element of skill absolutely - only then can you look at the balance of information warfare as a seperate issue.

[Tennex]

its an easy button and a bad game mechanic. make AMS work more like chaffs please. add a skill component to it evading it.