138 replies to this topic

[Vrekgar]

For Streaks, at this point you need a bit of a sanity in how they fly.

• When they first launch they need lots of mauverability to alter course towards fast moving targets.
  
• When they are in midcourse they need higher speed to cross the distance towards the target. They shouldnt be able to manuver as well as during the launch phase.
  
• Terminal phase they have to contend with high flight speed and short time before impact.

So what you need to look at is how they currently fly. So long as lock is maintained they will swirl around and maneuver at fantastic speed, when they really really shouldnt.

Proposal time!

:SSRM:

Adjust flight dynamics with some sanity, this means if your moving fast they will be able to miss. However return the target selction for streaks back to the CT. They wont always be able to hit it but the primary target they aim for should ALWAYS be the CT.

• Close range launch: 0-90m: Missile have low total velocity, but very high manuverability. After 90m transitions to...
  
• Mid range launch: 91-160m: Missiles have low mauverability, but high acceleration/velocity. Outright misses are possible. If missile cannot turn enough to aim towards the CT target it will still try to hit any other possible targets along its future course, so long as they dont exceed its maximum flight range. Transitions to...
  
• Long range launch: 161-280m: Missiles have very high velocity, but low mauverability. Misses are probable in this range bracket.

[Kobold]

SirLANsalot, on 06 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

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.

[ Warhammer example edited for brevity ]

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.

I stated that they should try to remain faithful to the spirit of the canon, while still adapting it to a balanced game. You presented no argument saying that PGI shouldn't try to remain faithful, just made a sweeping generalization saying they couldn't be identical.

I don't disagree with your premise that an action/skill game is different than a turn based/dice rolling game. To claim otherwise would be pretty stupid of me. However merely because the mode of play is different, that doesn't mean we should throw out the basic principles of how things are supposed to function in tabletop / canon. Why shouldn't we attempt to make a balanced, fun game that actually embodies those principles, rather than throw them out the window in an effort to make quick fixes.

We've already seen the latter approach tried, and in many areas it seems to have created more problems than it solved. Rather than focus on slapping another fix on top of the first fix (I'm looking at you, TAG and Narc changes next patch), we need to start from the beginning again.

We are still early enough in the development process that a significant change, if done with transparency and clearly stated goals, would be welcomed by the community.

Edited by Kobold, 06 December 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[CocoaJin]

BigJim, on 06 December 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

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.

But this would suggest the missiles could miss(not including obstacle collisions), which is explicitly un-TT. But I understand the desire to keep CPU workload as low as possible for SSRM use. So perhaps the easiest method would just be a much more restrictive lcok window and making it much easier to lose the lock once your cross-hairs are off the target...with a lose of target lock if the target falls outside the tube's firing cone...so using the arm's aiming pip to gain a lock on a target while facing the tubes in away that the target is outside the firing cone results in a lose of target lock.

[Kobold]

CocoaJin, on 06 December 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

But this would suggest the missiles could miss(not including obstacle collisions), which is explicitly un-TT. But I understand the desire to keep CPU workload as low as possible for SSRM use. So perhaps the easiest method would just be a much more restrictive lcok window and making it much easier to lose the lock once your cross-hairs are off the target...with a lose of target lock if the target falls outside the tube's firing cone...so using the arm's aiming pip to gain a lock on a target while facing the tubes in away that the target is outside the firing cone results in a lose of target lock.

Bolded the most important line, but I agree with this post in its entirety.

Making it harder to keep a lock with streaks, and making it so that they won't fire out nearly sideways at lights as they scoot away would go a long way toward balancing them for use against lightly armored targets. The spread to hit other sections alone will probably be enough to "fix" their use against larger, slower targets.

[RainbowToh]

GalaxyBluestar, 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.

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.

You can try putting SRMs in ur missile awesome they hurt. Much better shotgun effect than the LBX10 i might say

[Tempered]

For the most part, I like the op's assessment. I think there is a much better solution for ssrms, howerver.

In TT, ssrms do not have a guidance system, but rather a firing limiter that keeps you from firing unless you are going to hit. We should have something similar in MWO.

When using ssrms, instead of a lock on, you get a target reticle that shows exactly where you need to lead the target to score a hit. Have the big red lock on symbol be a continuously computed impact point. To further help hitting with ssrms, you could increase their speed to target.

This way you have gotten rid of the automatic hits, but preserved what ssrms are suppose to be. They will still be superior to srms, just not over powered. Messing with lock on times for ssrms will do nothing for the problem.

[Kobold]

Tempered, on 06 December 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

For the most part, I like the op's assessment. I think there is a much better solution for ssrms, howerver.

In TT, ssrms do not have a guidance system, but rather a firing limiter that keeps you from firing unless you are going to hit. We should have something similar in MWO.

When using ssrms, instead of a lock on, you get a target reticle that shows exactly where you need to lead the target to score a hit. Have the big red lock on symbol be a continuously computed impact point. To further help hitting with ssrms, you could increase their speed to target.

This way you have gotten rid of the automatic hits, but preserved what ssrms are suppose to be. They will still be superior to srms, just not over powered. Messing with lock on times for ssrms will do nothing for the problem.

While this might be the best option, it is also probably very server resource intensive. I would love to hear a dev weigh in on this particular option though.

Edited by Kobold, 07 December 2012 - 12:57 AM.

[Kobold]

Just giving this a shameless bump for the people who haven't seen it yet.

[Asmudius Heng]

Kobold, on 07 December 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

While this might be the best option, it is also probably very server resource intensive. I would love to hear a dev weigh in on this particular option though.

I would like to see a Dev weigh in on the topic of ECM in general ... i dont think they have said a word. I am hoping they are gathering data to see just how the game dynamics has shifted and what gets the wins and just how much less damage guided missiles now do in a match with ECM etc

The data will show the real truth, but what their rationale was to have such a hard counter to guided weapons compared to making those guided weapons work differently ... yea

[Codejack]

Your premises are false; streaks require MORE skill to get a lock than direct-fire weapons do (pressing the button when the crosshairs are over the target vs. keeping the reticule inside the target box for 2.5 seconds), and both LRMs and streaks already have severe limitations in terms of range, ability to counter (terrain, AMS, just moving really fast, etc), and interaction with other weapon systems (streaks + energy weapons get hot pretty quick).

As such, your proposed solutions do not really address the core issues: Netcode lag (which made streaks seem overpowered) and the imbalance of abilities of different equipment. Yes, SSRMs needed a better counter. Rendering them completely useless/dependent on one system (ECM) has just traded a slightly overpowered game mechanic for a seriously overpowered game mechanic.

ECM should either go back to straight TT rules (it only affects enemy units within 180m, and even then only increases lock time, delays radar detection, etc) or be partially countered by BAP, Artemis, TAG (more), and NARC.

[Kobold]

Codejack, on 07 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

1) Your premises are false; streaks require MORE skill to get a lock than direct-fire weapons do (pressing the button when the crosshairs are over the target vs. keeping the reticule inside the target box for 2.5 seconds), and both LRMs and streaks already have severe limitations in terms of range, ability to counter (terrain, AMS, just moving really fast, etc), and interaction with other weapon systems (streaks + energy weapons get hot pretty quick).

2) As such, your proposed solutions do not really address the core issues: Netcode lag (which made streaks seem overpowered) and the imbalance of abilities of different equipment. Yes, SSRMs needed a better counter. Rendering them completely useless/dependent on one system (ECM) has just traded a slightly overpowered game mechanic for a seriously overpowered game mechanic.

3) ECM should either go back to straight TT rules (it only affects enemy units within 180m, and even then only increases lock time, delays radar detection, etc) or be partially countered by BAP, Artemis, TAG (more), and NARC.

1) There are many people who would completely disagree with this paragraph, but this is why we are here to have a discussion, right? I think you'll be hard pressed to find many people who agree with your position that streaks require more skill, but I'm not going to hammer on that point for now, because...

2) ... we agree here! Binary "it works / it doesn't work" is a bad balancing system for basically anything.

3) I think we can only address ECM functionality after we have basic functionality that we are happy with.

[Orzorn]

I agree with the base idea a lot of people are also presenting in this thread: reduce the window size for keeping a lock. I've noticed it as well; you barely have to point in their direction once you achieve the lock. No, it should require you keep your crosshair pretty much on the red square. Currently, its basically a box that takes up half your screen. You don't really have to put a lot of effort in keeping the lock once you have it.

[Applecrow]

[Codejack]

Kobold, on 07 December 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

1) There are many people who would completely disagree with this paragraph, but this is why we are here to have a discussion, right? I think you'll be hard pressed to find many people who agree with your position that streaks require more skill, but I'm not going to hammer on that point for now, because...

2) ... we agree here! Binary "it works / it doesn't work" is a bad balancing system for basically anything.

3) I think we can only address ECM functionality after we have basic functionality that we are happy with.

Fair enough

[Kobold]

Isn't reasonable discussion grand?

[The Shredder]

I would add one more thought to your proposed fix of the LRMs.
Scout Mechs should be able to help guide in a LRM. And if a team mate near an enemy has them targeted, then that data should be used to help the LRMs miss your team mate. The TT rules were written at a time where things like GPS and motion sensors for your car were just sci-fi. PGI attempted to modernize things with some modern gaming conventions. If they took it back to it's roots, they would have an easier time with balance, but you would have people complaining with how outdated it was.
So by using team-mates lock-ons to help you MISS that team mate, instead of using it for targeting data, you would fix the issue in part. And by adding a system that would allow a team mate to guide in LRMs to a target, with some kind of drawback, you could imprive the situation further. Sure, the person doing the targeting might not get the kill, but then you could give LRMs back their punch, and encourage team work. Sure, you might not get the kill yourself, but helping the team knock out an enemy Atlas in record time becomes it's own reward.
Now, I'm likely describing my ideas all wrong, but the bottom line is easy. In today's military, scouts on the ground can call in targeting data for artillery located MILES away. The lore always described the Catapult and other LRM mechs as mobile artillery. With a little work, it would mean that low skilled PUG players can't dominate with missiles, and then the missiles become something best utilized by a team.

Lastly, if a mech only has five launch tubes, it should only be allowed an LRM 5. Being able to launch a near constanst stream of missiles from your Atlas just goes against balanced game play.
Sorry for the rant, and I hope people see it as an honest suggestion, and not grounds for a flame war... now flamers, that's a whole other issue...

[GalaxyBluestar]

The Shredder, on 07 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

I would add one more thought to your proposed fix of the LRMs.
Scout Mechs should be able to help guide in a LRM. And if a team mate near an enemy has them targeted, then that data should be used to help the LRMs miss your team mate. The TT rules were written at a time where things like GPS and motion sensors for your car were just sci-fi. PGI attempted to modernize things with some modern gaming conventions. If they took it back to it's roots, they would have an easier time with balance, but you would have people complaining with how outdated it was.
So by using team-mates lock-ons to help you MISS that team mate, instead of using it for targeting data, you would fix the issue in part. And by adding a system that would allow a team mate to guide in LRMs to a target, with some kind of drawback, you could imprive the situation further. Sure, the person doing the targeting might not get the kill, but then you could give LRMs back their punch, and encourage team work. Sure, you might not get the kill yourself, but helping the team knock out an enemy Atlas in record time becomes it's own reward.
Now, I'm likely describing my ideas all wrong, but the bottom line is easy. In today's military, scouts on the ground can call in targeting data for artillery located MILES away. The lore always described the Catapult and other LRM mechs as mobile artillery. With a little work, it would mean that low skilled PUG players can't dominate with missiles, and then the missiles become something best utilized by a team.

Lastly, if a mech only has five launch tubes, it should only be allowed an LRM 5. Being able to launch a near constanst stream of missiles from your Atlas just goes against balanced game play.
Sorry for the rant, and I hope people see it as an honest suggestion, and not grounds for a flame war... now flamers, that's a whole other issue...

this is the best idea for lrms yet, it means scouts will actually scout and have a great role to play, lrm's will have oppotunities again instead of being countered by ecm which is like mobile cover at the moment. the support role will truely be forefilled leaving soloists to the challenge they aught to have without killing lrm's from the board entirely. it would fix only lrm's which leaves the streak and srms still balanced as they are. Good work! this line of thought should be persued further!

[Kobold]

The Shredder, on 07 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

1) (edit for brevity) Now, I'm likely describing my ideas all wrong, but the bottom line is easy. In today's military, scouts on the ground can call in targeting data for artillery located MILES away. The lore always described the Catapult and other LRM mechs as mobile artillery. With a little work, it would mean that low skilled PUG players can't dominate with missiles, and then the missiles become something best utilized by a team.

2) Lastly, if a mech only has five launch tubes, it should only be allowed an LRM 5. Being able to launch a near constanst stream of missiles from your Atlas just goes against balanced game play.
Sorry for the rant, and I hope people see it as an honest suggestion, and not grounds for a flame war... now flamers, that's a whole other issue...

1) I disagree with this characterization of LRMs as artillery, if only because the battletech universe has actual artillery in it still. There exists both normal "tube" artillery (Thumper, Sniper, and Long Tom artillery), as well as guided and unguided missile artillery (Arrow IV missiles). In fact, some of these are already mentioned in places in the game files, suggesting PGI is planning to implement them. Meanwhile LRMs started their Battletech life as direct fire line of sight weapons, that even in the older 3025 tech did not significantly out-range the longest range energy weapons or ballistics at the time.

2) Is is probably beyond the scope of this thread. However I will say that where you see a benefit, in many cases the limited number of launch tubes is actually a hindrance. For example, try putting an LRM 20 on a AWS-9M. Suddenly your LRM 20 comes out 2 missiles at a time, and the cooldown of your weapon doesn't start until the LAST MISSILE fires. This is a significant reduction in DPS, and it gives opponents more time to get to cover. Try running a RVN-3L with two SRM-6 launchers, and see what happens when you fire the left arm launcher. However ultimately it is a relatively minor issue, and if they want to do it as a way to have some differences between the chassis, I don't really mind.

[Blark]

One of the best posts in weeks.

PGI would be well advised to read this.

Edited by Blark, 07 December 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Kobold, on 07 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

1) I disagree with this characterization of LRMs as artillery, if only because the battletech universe has actual artillery in it still. There exists both normal "tube" artillery (Thumper, Sniper, and Long Tom artillery), as well as guided and unguided missile artillery (Arrow IV missiles). In fact, some of these are already mentioned in places in the game files, suggesting PGI is planning to implement them. Meanwhile LRMs started their Battletech life as direct fire line of sight weapons, that even in the older 3025 tech did not significantly out-range the longest range energy weapons or ballistics at the time.

2) Is is probably beyond the scope of this thread. However I will say that where you see a benefit, in many cases the limited number of launch tubes is actually a hindrance. For example, try putting an LRM 20 on a AWS-9M. Suddenly your LRM 20 comes out 2 missiles at a time, and the cooldown of your weapon doesn't start until the LAST MISSILE fires. This is a significant reduction in DPS, and it gives opponents more time to get to cover. Try running a RVN-3L with two SRM-6 launchers, and see what happens when you fire the left arm launcher. However ultimately it is a relatively minor issue, and if they want to do it as a way to have some differences between the chassis, I don't really mind.

good points. this is starting to turn into a really good lets get everything back into play thread instaed of just two sides of the coin not being able to reason with eachother. GREAT STUFF!