95 replies to this topic

[Roland]

neke, on 18 February 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

CBT lesson:
Streak Launchers roll for hits, two possible outcomes are there:

TL;DR: In CBT, a Streak SRM will either miss and not waste ammo/produce heat at all OR all missiles will hit, although most likely different hit locations.

My mistake.
However, given that we are not bound by the limitations in terms of time required to roll dice, I think it could easily be modified in MWO to essentially "roll" per missile, such that every time you fired the streaks it fired a different number of missiles, all of which would hit the target.

[Suki]

Rofl, on 18 February 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

2 cents: The streak lock on and track mechanism is fine. They just need to add a counter to it (aside from ECM)... some piece of equipment maybe already in the game... that people don't use much.... hmmm...that almost all mechs can carry.... what could we use?

You are just crazy or on something? ECM makes streaks completely useless and You want another counter to it?
Why not adding counter to lasers and ballistics? Think they should implement it If sombody wants to be king of the hill standing alone by the lake laughing at all shooting at him?

[Cache]

Kyone Akashi, on 18 February 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Personally ... if it's just the launcher that would be different (refusing to fire unless having 100% hit probability), then it should not need special missiles but could launch normal SRMs just as much as any other special ammunition that any SRM launcher may be loaded with.

I like that description better, as it is what I remember from older products and it fits with the (lack of) special munitions in streak launchers. TechManual is the newest I have and it leaves too much room for interpretation IMO.

[Tanakasan240]

I like the idea of having to reacquire lock after launching a salvo, but how would it work if you chain fire them?

another thing may be to not allow artemis or bap to increase lockon time and leave it fixed... though difficult to do if you combine with LRMs..

Edited by Tanakasan240, 18 February 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[Kyone Akashi]

Tanakasan240, on 18 February 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

I like the idea of having to reacquire lock after launching a salvo, but how would it work if you chain fire them?

Personally, I would suggest that the computer keeps track of "several locks", whilst still only displaying a single reticule for SSRMs. Whilst chainfiring, the reticule will remain red and locked on until you have launched the last missile that still had a lock - at which point the reticule will update and "jump" back to the first, which has already begun to re-acquire hard lock ... provided you managed to keep it on target all the time.

Basically, the onboard computer will always show the reticule which either already has, or is closest to achieving a hard lock - because that will be the launcher you are going to fire next.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 18 February 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Cache]

Roland, on 18 February 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

However, given that we are not bound by the limitations in terms of time required to roll dice, I think it could easily be modified in MWO to essentially "roll" per missile, such that every time you fired the streaks it fired a different number of missiles, all of which would hit the target.

Not at all. Streak launchers fire all or none. That is how they are designed. Would you also expect a way to choose how many LRM tubes fire per launcher?

[Texugo87]

Kyone Akashi, on 18 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I'd really keep the fingers off any sort of "pre-shot" solution. If you make SSRMs depend on an invisible projectile launched before, the most notable results would be:
1) it takes considerably longer until your weapon actually fires (about a full second, which in the heat of battle feels way longer) since the launcher needs to wait until the invisible "pre-shot" has hit its target
2) you will still have "impossible shots" because within the one second the actual SSRMs need to travel, the target 'Mech could change its position in a way that would have prevented the "pre-shot" from hitting

I agree that that would be far too long of a lag. I'm going off a presumption that the anti-lag measures including, but not limited to state rewind are capable of predicting whether there is a hit. The problem we currently have with lag shooting is A seeing B as if he is at X, when because of lag he is actually at Y. State-rewind from the way I understanding will check where A and B each think they are and think eachother is and correct the disparity. A doesn't need to actually shoot B with an invisible projectile, A and B just need to sync up their relative positions. From there the server just needs to predict whether A would have hit B with said projectile and tell A whether or not to fire the SSRM. There would be a lag (which is something i'm concerned about), but it should be short enough to prevent an impossible shot animation. Furthermore it would simply be an impossible shot animation, even under the true invisible projectile system, the shot itself still had to be possible. It seems like the bigger problem now is true impossible shots being made.

[Roland]

Cache, on 18 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Not at all. Streak launchers fire all or none. That is how they are designed.

I am proposing a change to how they work.
So that every time you fire them, only some of them would fire.
It would be different.

Cache, on 18 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Would you also expect a way to choose how many LRM tubes fire per launcher?

No, because I don't think anyone considers LRMs to be even remotely overpowered weapons currently.

[OneEyed Jack]

Ashnod, on 18 February 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

The real question is why is the lock retained after firing, conditions change and so the lock should have to be regained, said mech might have moved behind terrain and therefor the computer needs to workout a new path for its guaranteed hit if their is even a viable path to follow for the SRM's.

For the same reason that lock-on is retained prior to firing... as long as you can manage to retain it. Causing the launcher to mysteriously dump targeting data when the target is still right there is simply ludicrous and illogical. You are assuming that the lock equates to a firing solution, when the more likely system involves a tracking system locked onto a specific target ( i.e.: heat signature, radar designation, whatever).

Orzorn, on 18 February 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

The issue is that if you reduce the "lock box" for SSRMs, you run into LRM+SSRM issues, because they both use the same circle lock indicator. It is for that reason I suggested a new indicator for Streaks, such as having the small arm target circle turn into a square when you have an SSRM lock.

I don't think it's an issue at all. LRMs fire at targets that are further away, not at targets moving quickly past them and close range, so maintaining a target lock in a narrower window would remain fairly easy, though it would require to pilot to at least pay attention.

cjmurphy87, on 18 February 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Without altering the way SRM work in MWO, if we want to achieve the same difficulty in use what I would propose is as follows:
1. Lead and pull trigger, no lock on system
2. State rewind or other server based system checks if a single, ballistic projectile travelling at srm speed (300m/s) would have hit the mech you are shooting at, sends results back to your client.
3. if successful you fire SSRM that now track to where ever the target is now, and follow the same or similar damage spread mechanic we have now. If unsuccessful no expenditure of ammo, no heat generated, but cool down still triggered, makes no lock sound SSRM currently do.
4. SSRM either travel at 200m/s in animation, or travel at SRM speed of 300m/s with reduced hitpoints to allow same AMS intercept rate.

I would trigger the cool down to prevent people from just holding down the trigger and sweeping the target.

Thoughts? Does this comply with the spirit of SSRM from table top, while making it workable in our current frame work?

While something like this might work, triggering the cooldown is stupid in that it doesn't make any sense. What's the delay? Energy weapons charge capacitors and ammo-based weapons cycle new rounds in, but what's the sense here? Your targeting system decides to take a nap because it's tired from working so hard? It makes no more sense than the inexplicable dumping of targeting data.

[Kyone Akashi]

Cache, on 18 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Not at all. Streak launchers fire all or none. That is how they are designed. Would you also expect a way to choose how many LRM tubes fire per launcher?

I'd actually like that, just to create the "Katyusha effect"... The only reason I got a 6 hardpoint Catapult back then was so I could chainfire a bunch of LRM-5's.



Technically, a "single fire" feature for all missile weapons might be a rather interesting feature. Something for another thread, though, I suppose.

[Orzorn]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 February 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I don't think it's an issue at all. LRMs fire at targets that are further away, not at targets moving quickly past them and close range, so maintaining a target lock in a narrower window would remain fairly easy, though it would require to pilot to at least pay attention.

I don't think you're grasping the issue.

If you have LRMs and SSRMs sharing a lock indicator like they do now, but SSRMs lock box is smaller than LRMs, then getting a lock with LRMs would not guarantee a lock with SSRMs (as it does now). That means the circle indicator would not be showing you that your SSRMs had a lock. You need two separate indicators if you want to have two separate lock box sizes.

The issue is one of underlying engine mechanics, not of difficulty or player troubles. The intent was indeed to narrow the size of locks for SSRMs and to require players to put more effort forth, but that can not be done without two separate indicators, for the reasons I described above.

[OneEyed Jack]

Roland, on 18 February 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

I am proposing a change to how they work.
So that every time you fire them, only some of them would fire.
It would be different.

Not gonna happen.

Regardless of whether you (or I) like it or not, PGI is designing MWO to be a sim/fps interpretation of Battletech, rather than a completely different game modeled on the look of BT. They'll take some liberties with interpretation and numbers (i.e.: armor, cycle time, heat, etc...) to make the transition work, but a complete rewrite if anything is extremely unlikely, at best.

[DocBach]

Streaks work as intended. If the computer got a lock, they fired, and they all hit.

A way to balance Clan LRM's, as it has come up in this thread, is to change their launch angle to near straight in trajectory. Since Clans are all about single one-on-one combat, make it so their LRM's are incapable for indirect fire, even if a spotter can see a target for them.

[OneEyed Jack]

Orzorn, on 18 February 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I don't think you're grasping the issue.

If you have LRMs and SSRMs sharing a lock indicator like they do now, but SSRMs lock box is smaller than LRMs...

*snip*

It's you that's not grasping it. I'm saying LRMs would be fine with a smaller one than they currently have. There's no reason to have 2 separate boxes, imo.

[Roland]

Only fools would look at the suggested difference in how streaks are interpreted, and say, "OMG THAT'S NOT BATTLETECH!"

Such a trivial aspect of gameplay doesn't play a critical role in the overall feel of the battletech universe.

[Orzorn]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 February 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

It's you that's not grasping it. I'm saying LRMs would be fine with a smaller one than they currently have. There's no reason to have 2 separate boxes, imo.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, sure, I see that.

I still don't like LRMs and SSRMs sharing a reticule, though, because it means an LRM lock (which can lock through terrain) equates to an SSRM lock (which should only get locks on a visible, and thus, hittable, target).

So I would still argue for separate lock indicators.

Edited by Orzorn, 18 February 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

I vote "yes" to forcing Streak&LRMs to re-aquire lock after firing. Some tweaking to the damage model for light mechs is also beneficial - I'm fine with the missile fire NOT hitting a specific target, but do a "normal" distribution were more missiles hit CT than R/LT than Arm/leg than head.

[Suki]

Roland, on 18 February 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

I am proposing a change to how they work.
So that every time you fire them, only some of them would fire.
It would be different.


No, because I don't think anyone considers LRMs to be even remotely overpowered weapons currently.

There's so many threads about "nerfing LRM's" i can't even count, pay a little attention at least.

[Texugo87]

Roland, on 18 February 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Only fools would look at the suggested difference in how streaks are interpreted, and say, "OMG THAT'S NOT BATTLETECH!"

Such a trivial aspect of gameplay doesn't play a critical role in the overall feel of the battletech universe.

I don't think anyone is proposing that simply because they are different than canon they should be changed. My reason for wanting them changed is that their autohit nature doesn't fit well into the current gameplay (in my opinion), and that issue will only be magnified when SSRM4/6 show up. I chose to return to canon to try to think of a mechanic that would fit better in the game. SSRM in their current implimentation are low heat, low weight, decent damage, next to zero skill, and very difficult to counter. I suggested a system that, if workable, would require skill while still giving SSRM an advantage for the weight, and a different flavour than SRM. Alternatively a readily available zero skill counter could be implemented, such as drastically decreasing SSRM hit points so AMS counters them from almost any range, would improve game play and balance. SSRM's offer a big advantage, for limited costs, requiring no additional skill, with few counters. It's the same argument use against ECM in it's current iteration. (Sidenote: I think buffing AMS would have been a better solution to LRM/SSRM power than ECM, as you could defeat enemy AMS by expending their ammo, but then you would need to bring enough, contrarily dedicating space to AMS and ammo would have been a more important decision.)

[Dagger6T6]

My opinion on Streaks is that they should need to reacquire lock every time they are fired. Instead of getting a lock and just staying locked if the reticule is reasonably close to the target box.

I think this would have went a long way to alleviate some of the Streak problems we have seen in the past and some of what we see on the ECM Steak light mech combo