43 replies to this topic

[Grimm Stoner]

In a situation a cluster of LRMs are heading in my direction, will firing a laser salvo into their midst at least thin them out a bit? Or should a group of SRMs pass through someones line of machine gun fire, will they be unaffected?

[ManDaisy]

you da man

[Aegis Kleais]

Grimm Stoner, on 12 March 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

In a situation a cluster of LRMs are heading in my direction, will firing a laser salvo into their midst at least thin them out a bit? Or should a group of SRMs pass through someones line of machine gun fire, will they be unaffected?

Firing a laser at a cluster of LRMs is akin to just wasting time and generating heat. Your chances of a pinpoint weapon hitting a LRM is amazingly low. Same deal with SRM/MG.

L/AMS is designed to handle what projectiles it can. I'd be happy just knowing you at least have SOME type of automated defense against a weapon type. No such thing exists for ballistic/energy weapons.

[CoffiNail]

Well, depends how you want you game to run LOL.

Having EACH missile be a independent entity will bog down the machine, IF you have a couple lances of mechs with LRMS all fire off at once, do you want to be playing with 5 FPS?

Edited by CoffiNail, 12 March 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Mr Smiles]

I sincerely doubt that anything but an AMS will reduce the number of missiles that hit you. They simply move too fast and from too high an angle for even a crack shot to even bother taking aim at them.
But even if that crack shot did, allowing for weapons to strike them would add calculations to the game with each shot fired and each missile launched, increasing the strain on servers for an extremely rare occurrence. It would also add in a lot of development time and potential bugs, still for the same extremely rare occurrence.

So I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Grimm Stoner]

Each missile should be tracked as a separate entity for damage purposes anyways, as not all missiles in a cluster will necessarily make contact with the target. I'm simply wanting to know whether or not a missile will be invulnerable to everything except specifically designated anti-missile systems.

[StaggerCheck]

Just thought of this, but from the game play videos it looked to me as if all the missiles were hitting home, not a random number of missiles. The game play changed the averages pretty well, in that not only did you need to hit with the missile salvo in the first place, but the number of missiles that hit from the salvo was determined by random 2d6 roll, as well. For an example, an LRM 20 rack could hit with anything from 6 to 20 missiles. Seems to me the missile flights are headed to target [for LRM fire] in five point packets, while the SRM 6 and 4 packs seem to fire off as a single packet, too, right from laucher to target.

As for picking off missiles or thinning the herd while inbound, I am pretty sure Anti-Missile Systems, or AMS for short, will be the main means of doing so.

[Sug]

Duck and Cover. You'll be fine.

[MilitantMonk]

Kill them before they get to shoot missles at you?

[Risky]

Anti-missile systems.

[Jacob Martinez]

what about small Flak Cannons to defend agains missiles?

[MaddMaxx]

Jacob Martinez, on 12 March 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

what about small Flak Cannons to defend agains missiles?

You mean like an AMS type system. I like it.

[Derick Cruisaire]

CoffiNail, on 12 March 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Well, depends how you want you game to run LOL.

Having EACH missile be a independent entity will bog down the machine, IF you have a couple lances of mechs with LRMS all fire off at once, do you want to be playing with 5 FPS?

Oh my! Laghammers anyone?

MilitantMonk, on 12 March 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Kill them before they get to shoot missles at you?

Excellent idea!

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

CoffiNail, on 12 March 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Well, depends how you want you game to run LOL.

Having EACH missile be a independent entity will bog down the machine, IF you have a couple lances of mechs with LRMS all fire off at once, do you want to be playing with 5 FPS?

What a nonsense) Missiles _are_ independent objects! They were so even in mechwarrior 1 and ever since, and (surprise!) never bogged anything even by massive missile strikes LOL.
But that's not the point why they should or should not be prone to weapon fire.
Shooting down one missile of 20 - it's just not worth it) Lay your hopes on AMS)

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 12 March 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

You simply press the bright red button below that clear plastic cover on the bottom left of your Mech's console. That triggers a massive tactical nuclear warhead to explode, which wipes out all those annoying missiles as well as the whole enemy team... and eventually yourself as well, though. Congratulations, you have now won MWO!

Now kindly move on and enjoy your future life in "Hello Kitty Online"!

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 March 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[ManDaisy]

ok ignoring dlardregeths nonsense... I see were getting into the pattern of not worth it "to some" so dont make it possible.. vs realistically its possible but hard to do. The Circle of Life...

[Kaemon]

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 12 March 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

What a nonsense) Missiles _are_ independent objects! They were so even in mechwarrior 1 and ever since, and (surprise!) never bogged anything even by massive missile strikes LOL.
But that's not the point why they should or should not be prone to weapon fire.
Shooting down one missile of 20 - it's just not worth it) Lay your hopes on AMS)

Welcome, good sir, to online gaming, please find a chair inbetween the rest of us, make sure your tray table is in the upright and locked position, and prepare for the goodness that is 'multi-user gameplay'.

ManDaisy, on 12 March 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

ok ignoring dlardregeths nonsense... I see were getting into the pattern of not worth it "to some" so dont make it possible.. vs realistically its possible but hard to do. The Circle of Life...

Actually I believe the pattern mentioned is 'it will melt your CPU and reduce the game to an unplayable mess, so don't make it possible'.

That's quite a bit different than 'not worth it to some'.

[CapperDeluxe]

Mechwarrior Living Legends apparently tried this pre-beta. The problem is you have to synchronize each individual missiles position over the network to each player and this can help contribute to server lag if lets say you've got 200 LRMs flying around at once. Unless the engine is somehow more optimized for this particular purpose it tends to be better to only let AMS knock these out of the sky so as to reduce the stress on the gameplay.

[Dlardrageth]

Kaemon, on 12 March 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

[...]Actually I believe the pattern mentioned is 'it will melt your CPU and reduce the game to an unplayable mess, so don't make it possible'.

That's quite a bit different than 'not worth it to some'.

Mr. Daisy tried to argue this very mechanic once before in the suggestions forum with less than stunning success. I basically stated there I'd give up on discussing this seriously, when the "arguments" started getting completely ridiculous. This is just a mediocre attempt at revamping that one, so why bother again? People can just use the search function... or not bother and get what they deserve for it maybe?

Edit: Not blaming ManDaisy for this thread, though IMHO he should have pointed to the old one to spare us the n-th rehash of same old, same old.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 March 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[ManDaisy]

I didn't start it mind you, numerous people have posted similar post, this is not my view alone. Oh yes and in every argument I won soundly. Your side has always had to counter our technically possible logic with its not worth it do something else logic, but asides from possible tech limits you can't justify a reason for missiles not to able to be shot down. <----"Shaping the consensus, this is a cheap political tactic, really nothings been said on the issue so we're still at dead lock between the haters and supporters. I'm just showing those who don't realize it what Dlards attempting to do."

Edited by ManDaisy, 12 March 2012 - 10:14 AM.