63 replies to this topic

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

MRM are just LRM with less max and min range. I don't see the problem.

So you also want to reduce their range ?
What about making your own mechwarrior game, Focuspark ?

Quote

The point is, if we already effectively have C3i why not MRM usability in LRM?

That's no point.

Quote

Yes. MRM aren't completely dumbfire, they do arc to a specified range, very similar to LRM.

LRMs arc to a specified target. Entirely different.

Quote

I'm just looking for a solution to LRM

LRMs need no solution ! You're alone on this idea man !

Quote

LRM are incredibly fire and forget. Lock on, fire. So long as you lock doesn't break you can shoot things locally with no problem.

And that's exactly NOT the fire and forget definition. They're lead to target weapons.

Quote

But that's how LRM indirect fire works today and you said you like it how it is.

Not at all. You can shoot at things other people see. They don't have to do anything else than playing like they want.
Now I see that you're a liar and you don't play a LRM Cat.
Probably not even at Mechwarrior Online, by the look of it.
And yes I like it as it is.

Quote

MW:O LRM are based no skill - just lock on.

Maintaining lock-on and choosing target that will be locked long enough being a player skill.
You really don't play a LRM Cat.

Quote

I'd love to, but the AC/20 won't reach.

At 810m then, a payday you won't hit.

And you already know it's pure luck.

[Fut]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

LRM are incredibly fire and forget. Lock on, fire. So long as you lock doesn't break you can shoot things locally with no problem.

Pretty sure you're just trying to rile people up now.

[focuspark]

Fut, on 23 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Pretty sure you're just trying to rile people up now.

Not sure how long you've been playing MW:O now, but I remember pre-ECM and how many "LRM are OP" threads flooded these forums with people crying about LRM mechs were getting a free ride. The problem with LRM then was that they were too easy to use with no risk. Either you need to increase the risk or difficulty. ECM is an attempt to do that, but I think ECM is done wrong hence I'm suggesting a fix for LRM as well.

@Amarius
I don't play a LRM CAT much if ever anymore because ECM makes them pointless IMO. Better to play a SRM CAT and have some fun. Yes, SRM not SSRM. Easy street isn't fun, it's just easy.

Once stack rewind is in place, I'll show you how leading is done and hit a moving target at 800m for ya. Today it is impossible due to the lag and poor netcode, but as I keep saying: that fix is coming.

Edited by focuspark, 23 January 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Theobald Hauser]

Quote

@Amarius
I don't play a LRM CAT much if ever anymore because ECM makes them pointless IMO. Better to play a SRM CAT and have some fun. Yes, SRM not SSRM. Easy street isn't fun, it's just easy.

Two very, very, very wrong facts in two phrases.
ECM didn't make LRMs pointless. Just a little harder to play. ECM can still be countered by TAGging things.
And Streakats are beings of the past. Nobody play them anymore. You can't do anything against ECM lights, you can't do anything against heavies and assaults, you spend entire games doing nothing. Streaks have a really bad dps against big mechs, their only advantage was against the little ones.

And stop bragging impossible things. You can't lead a moving mech at 800m with an AC/20, I'm not speaking of some predictary course thing, i'm speaking of real players. And with two times slower unguided rockets that need to target the ground, even more.

I'm letting this go, I'm not answering anymore, it just needs a quick burrial now.
I would say goodbye, but i'm sure to see you again in another thread tomorrow saying the exact same things.

[gilliam]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM indirect fire doesn't exist in TT until C3 comes into play, but in MW:O it seems all 'mechs have C3i built in for free; so let's role with that

Wrong.
LRM indirect fire has always existed.
The TT rules are that you have to have a spotter and you have to take both the launcher's and the spotters movement into account when rolling to-hit (and you also take an additional penalty if the spotter tries to fire weapons). If you use the right ammo, you can fire a TAG at a target and completely ignore the spotter if the laser hits the target.

C3 allows mechs to fire using the range numbers of a networked mech closest to the target (something I have no idea how you can possibly replicate in a game, but simple target data sharing is not the limit of C3). Indirect fire does not benefit from C3 at all.

Volthorne, on 23 January 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Also, MRMs have no tracking hardware and are essentially ER-SRMs.

Not quite. SRMs are supposed to be seeking weapons and so they (in the TT, with the appropriate ammo load) can benefit from Artemis, TAG and NARC beacons. What makes Streaks so special is that the launcher control system will not fire unless all of the missiles have achieved a solid lock which means all of the missiles hit when it actually does fire.

MRMs, on the other hand are purely dumb-fire. This means that they fly in pretty much a straight line, so hitting a moving target with them is fairly difficult.

I should note that Guardian ECM is NOT supposed to have any effect at all on Streak SRMs (Angel ECM causes some of the streak missiles to miss, but that won't be invented for a few years, and even after it is, it is experimental gear in only limited deployment).

I have no problem with LRMs in general, though I should note that it is supposed to take a little bit more effort on the spotter's part, the the extent that firing LRMs indirectly at a moving target usually requires the launcher to move into medium range. My personal thoughts on this are that the spotter and the launching mech should have to maintain a lock for indirect fire to actually hit, but direct fire shouldn't be affected. Also indirect fire shouldn't benefit from Artemis.

ECM is a bit out of hand, it shouldn't be affecting lock-ons at all, though I will grant that it might interfere with the link between the spotter and launcher. It also shouldn't generally be affecting much beyond it's 180 meter range. Also, it should not, in any way, be affecting TAG (I am pretty sure it's like this now, though it wasn't when ECM first debuted if I am reading the notes right) So, TAG is the Spotter's counter to ECM: If you get jammed, TAG the target, and the missiles can hit despite the communication's issue (should also include indirectly fired missiles)

I should also note, that missiles (LRMs AND SRMs, should be seeking TAGged targets better than untagged targets)

Edited by gilliam, 23 January 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[Peter Thorndyke IV]

focuspark, on 23 January 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

LRM indirect fire doesn't exist in TT until C3 comes into play, but in MW:O it seems all 'mechs have C3i built in for free; so let's role with that.

LRM fire requires Targeting Data, or TD, to be available. TD can be obtained via LOS or a team mate with LOS. If you're using a team mates LOS for TD, then it is indirect fire. Note that if either mech is within the 180m radius of ECM TD cannot be shared.

Basically, I'm proposing that when using LRM for indirect fire LRM works just as it does now but the missiles do not re-aim after launch. Instead they travel to the location the mech was when they were launched. If the mech has moved, the missile miss, if not they connect per-normal.

I'm also proposing that the missiles travel faster (I believe they're currently about 100 m/s, I suggest 500 m/s) and that they have a fixed arc of travel based on the distance to make computing blocking obstacles easier for the server and a human attempting to visibly discern if the missiles they want to fire will reach the target or not.



Make sense? Yes, I know LRM will be less accurate than they are now, but they'll also be unaffected my ECM (other than to prevent TD sharing and disabling Artemis).

Pretty much, a simple NO, it doesn't make sense

if you are refering to Battletech rules, its rather simple:

There is a rule for indirect LRM fire (BT Compendium p. 62)

And no it does not require C3 or any other crap,
Short version: LRMs may be fired indirectly if the Attacker does not have a valid LOS to the target.
It was a simple +1 to hit modifier

The targeting Data sharing only affected the afore mentioned C3 networks, Sharing a Lance/Star-mates LOS data about a hostile was never effeted by ECM.

The only thing that was represented by the random hit numbers of missiles was the movement of the Target, that was in no relation to the relative Distance between the Attacker and the Target (the Table used was always the same)

Even if something allong the BT Rules was to be implemented, how do you want to ensure that if the crosshair is on target while shooting your salvo a minimum of:

Launcher - Min Missiles hit (2 ond 2D6)- Avg. Missile Hit (7 on 2D6)
LRM 5 - - - - - 1 Missile - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Missiles
LRM 10 - - - - 3 Missiles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 Missiles
LRM 15 - - - - 5 Missiles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 Missiles
LRM 20 - - - - -6 Missiles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 Missiles

So simply put if the BT board rules were to be aplied in MWO an average LRM20 Damage per salvo would result in 21 Damage of wich the damage is to be aplied in two 9 Damage blocks to a location and a 3 Damage block to a third.

I suppose if the implementation would be done you would start asking for a roll back to the current system, the average damage of an LRM 20 feels way lower at the moment.

Also if you take a closer look at the average missiles hit, it seems that MWO allready took steps to reduce the damage potential on the LRMs.

-------sorry gilliam --- didnt read your post

Edited by Peter Thorndyke IV, 24 January 2013 - 05:31 AM.

[Regrets]

Sorry I can't find in here any more, but pretty sure someone suggest LRM changed to MW3 type LRM, what is that? Sorry didn't play that version. :}

[Consta Pation]

actually I think the solution is quite simple.

Way back when combat was going way too fast and they wanted to slow it down.
So, they doubled armor and reduced the damage of directfire weapons but ignored missiles. This is where people started missile boating, because now missiles were no longer a support weapon but a weapon of low risk/high reward.

If you want to make reasonable changes modify missile damage the same percentage you modified directfire damage. Then you can return ECM back to what it was suppose to be instead of an all-in-one package.

But this will never happen as there are a large amount of people who have gotten use to the easy points and easy kills and the QQing would be at the level only god has seen.

[Volthorne]

Consta Pation, on 24 January 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

So, they doubled armor and reduced the damage of directfire weapons but ignored missiles.

No, sorry, wrong. They never touched damage numbers except when missiles felt like Nerf darts.

[focuspark]

So while we continue to hash out LRM. What about my proposed ECM and SSRM changes?

@Peter Thorndyke IV
My problem today with LRM is that indirect is just as easy as direct fire. Actually it's easier because nobody is shooting at you. It takes little to no skill to lob LRM at an enemy while somebody else spots. While I think indirect fire is an important aspect of the game, I'd like it to require more skill so that good pilots really shine and it feels "fair" compared to other long range weapons.

[Volthorne]

focuspark, on 24 January 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

require more skill so that good pilots really shine and it feels "fair"compared to other long range weapons.

Do you think it's "fair" that I need to carry sometimes upwards of 40 tons of gear to fill a single role? Do you think it's "fair"that when I get attacked I *must* pick between helping my team and attempting to save my own ***?

Playing "fair" gets you dead.

[Pachar]

So I read every post and every response and this is what I'm getting from this post. Focuspark, you aren't having a discussion, you're asking for people to agree with you. This is evident because when people offer a dissenting opinion you tell them they're wrong, without presenting anything but an your own opinion. Just wanted to put that out there, as for your changes.
ECM does only affect a 180m radius, a lock on a target is achive via an active signal feedback, the ECM disrupts that feedback ergo no lock. There is no cloak, if you can see the target you see the target. If you have a dumbfire weapon you can fire your dumbfire weapon and hit or not depending on your skill. I agree that ECM is bent and it needs a tweek, but if you don't present the problem accurately your arguments become invalid.
SSRMs do have a risk. If you are in range of an ECM mech disrupting you they are effectively turned off. They are incapable of being fired, extra weight with no use, ammo that can explode only inside your chasis. Plus their damage is pretty minimal.
As for LRMs your solution is not a solution because..... If they took your suggestion for firing them (where you lock, fire and they go to the spot the enemy mech occupied when the shot was fired) regardless of speed the enemy mech would only be there if they were stationary. The only way to fire an LRM that you have to manually target would be to either input a range and direction, or have a map that you would click on the destination and that's where the missiles go. The second would be a novel concept, and the mech would be very open to being destroyed by a light that slipped past the front lines, the first would be a little cumbersome but interesting, either way would be an option, but yours I don't believe is a viable option. Also in reference to your key argument of risk vs. reward. People have pointed it out multiple times, but I'll try again.... LRM's have a min 180 range which makes them incapable of hurting anyone inside that range, so the risk is that if a person gets too close you can't hurt them anymore and they can take you appart at their leisure unless friendly mechs help you out or you're faster than them, which is usually not the case with an LRM boat. That's your RISK!!! you can choose to mitigate that risk on say an A1 cat by putting on some SRM's, but that reduces your LRM payload, and there you see how risk vs. reward really works. I'm sorry you have a problem with LRMs but your should seek cover and move from cover to cover only under the shield of an ECM or you're in the open, which is where every soldier has had a high chance of death since the invention of the bow.

[focuspark]

@Pachar
I'm not telling people they're wrong, I'm discussing it with them. I've yet to be persuaded by any of the arguments so far. As for the travel time for LRM guaranteeing a miss, that's not a problem for ballistic weapons - why are LRM special?

As for ECM, it does impact a larger area than 180m. If you're outside the 180m radius, you still cannot detect mechs inside the radius. ECM is supposed to attack electronics, well how is it attacking your electronics if it's too far away? In that reguard it is not limited to 180m radius and does offer cloaking because you cannot see protected units on the minimap or tactical map and you cannot get a reticule on protected targets. This is a form of psudo-cloak. Yes, true LOS still works but that completely defeats indirect fire - which is what I'm trying to restore.

Edited by focuspark, 24 January 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Pachar]

I explained the ECM bit in the first sentence of the second paragraph (kind of a run on sentence, but still there).
As for your LRM ballistics comparison that's a specious argument. Your fix for LRMs would have them targeted at the point of the reticle(using your comparison), with ballistics you lead your target to insure a hit. You can't lead a target with the current LRM system, which I covered in my counterpoint. I even covered two ways that you could do indirect fire, the current UI can't support your fix.

[focuspark]

Pachar, on 24 January 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

I explained the ECM bit in the first sentence of the second paragraph (kind of a run on sentence, but still there).
As for your LRM ballistics comparison that's a specious argument. Your fix for LRMs would have them targeted at the point of the reticle(using your comparison), with ballistics you lead your target to insure a hit. You can't lead a target with the current LRM system, which I covered in my counterpoint. I even covered two ways that you could do indirect fire, the current UI can't support your fix.

I see where you're coming from now. Yeah, that's a problem with the indirect fire but how do you lead what you cannot see without giving complete lock on capabilities? Look at the General Forum to see people already complaining about LRM being OP again. Also, I did say that LRM should function like big SRM when doing direct fire.

[Pachar]

As long as LRMs remain indirect fire weapons I can't explain anything any better than I have already. If they decide to have them be long range direct fire missiles that a whole new discusion, and maybe something you should bring up if that's what you want them to do. As far as your questions to my responses I've answered all of them in my first post. I'm done with this thread.

[focuspark]

And this is where I keep coming back to my suggestion because nobody else has one. I feel LRM need to support both indirect and direct fire, but also should not have a lock on ability.

[focuspark]

I'd like to add my more recent idea for fixing ECM. Basically, ECM should protect allied mechs within the bubble from indirect fire and prevent enemy mechs within the bubble from sharing targeting data... and that's it.


Pink circle represents the ECM bubble's area of effect. Grey rectangles are visual obstructions (probably buildings). Red dots are the team with the ECM mech. Blue dots are the opposing team.

A: ECM mech. Protected by ECM bubble.
B: Allied mech. Protected by ECM bubble.
C: Allied mech. Unprotected.

D: Enemy mech, within the ECM bubble. Can target A & B. Cannot share targeting data.
E: Enemy mech, outside the ECM bubble. Can Target A & C. Can share targeting data.
F: Enemy mech, outside the ECM bubble. Cannot target anyone. Can indirect fire C using E's targeting data; A & B are protected from indirect fire.

[Koshirou]

gilliam, on 23 January 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Wrong.
LRM indirect fire has always existed.

For values of "always" young whippersnappers can comprehend, maybe!
When I started playing, all the rules were in a thin booklet, there were 14 different Mechs, all ripped from various Anime, and none of that fancy exotic equipment like more than one type of autocannon.

Quote

The TT rules are that you have to have a spotter and you have to take both the launcher's and the spotters movement into account when rolling to-hit (and you also take an additional penalty if the spotter tries to fire weapons). If you use the right ammo, you can fire a TAG at a target and completely ignore the spotter if the laser hits the target.

Exactly, but this is part of the problem: In BattleTech, indirect fire requires active cooperation between spotter and firing unit. in MWO, not so much. There is very little skill involved in setting up indirect fire.

But in any case, my opinion:

The core problem with LRMs is that they do too much damage.

In contrast to almost all other weapons, they got a massive damage boost compared to what they get in the TT. It's even higher than the 1.8 damage modifier officially listed since in MWO, because more missiles hit on average.

A loadout that is a) very easy to use, very deadly and c) can only be countered by a specific piece of equipment that may or may not be present in PUGs is bad design IMHO. There's no other weapon setup where you have such a stark contrast between useless and OP.

My solution would be to remove or severely reduce the ECM effects on LRM and SSRM locks, but also reduce missile damage. Let's say down to 1.2 per LRM and 2.4 per SRM.

[focuspark]

Koshirou, on 13 February 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

The core problem with LRMs is that they do too much damage.

In contrast to almost all other weapons, they got a massive damage boost compared to what they get in the TT. It's even higher than the 1.8 damage modifier officially listed since in MWO, because more missiles hit on average.

A loadout that is a) very easy to use, very deadly and c) can only be countered by a specific piece of equipment that may or may not be present in PUGs is bad design IMHO. There's no other weapon setup where you have such a stark contrast between useless and OP.

My solution would be to remove or severely reduce the ECM effects on LRM and SSRM locks, but also reduce missile damage. Let's say down to 1.2 per LRM and 2.4 per SRM.

I'd argue that LRMs are too accurate at range. IMO it's better to put their damage back to 2.0, increase their velocity to 500 m/s but only have them attack the location the target was when they launched. Moving targets, at range, very hard to hit. Near or still targets are scrap metal. Yay - LRMs would require some skill again.

Oh and LRM lock on with LOS should be nearly 0 seconds and not be affected by ECM at all.