38 replies to this topic

[Viper69]

ArcherX, on 23 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

The missiles in this game travel very slowly.

That is so people have time to move. If they traveled as fast as normal ballistic weapons people would scream from the mountains. Be glad they slowed them down, if you get to manually shoot them down I really hope they speed them back up to a more realistic velocity, then we will see how much people complain then. Quit being cheap ***** and buy a damn AMS.

[Xyroc]

Love when people like ole mr. _______ here try to reference RL tech aka the m16 to a missile theory even though the "machine guns" on these mechs are very different and much larger than a m16. ( even though any m16 can hurt something past 90m but these cant so RL physics is irrelevant ) Besides that yours Lasers should be able to detonate some of the missiles if shot into the clusters if we want to be hypothetical.

Edited by Beliall, 23 February 2013 - 09:33 PM.

[Franchi]

Please devs let them have this, its going to make my job of ghosting mechs SOOOO much easier when half of them are firing their weapons into the air at LRM's.

Those of us who are competent will continue to use cover and break locks while advancing those of us who are not will attempt to stand in the open guns blazing into the sky until they overheat and eat a head shot or a massive alpha in the back.

Edited by Franchi, 23 February 2013 - 09:39 PM.

[Beeman]

ArcherX, on 23 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

The missiles in this game travel very slowly.

Missiles and rockets in most games travel really slowly. Just like jets and such. Usually it's only actual simulators that attempt to have rocket-propelled projectiles traveling at any realistic level of speed.

It's like...every time I tried to play Battlefield 3 I'd watch supersonic jets practically floating as if we had no gravity or aerodynamics...it just made me turn around and go back to ArmA 2. Then I'd die on the inside because ArmA2's animations and movement on the soldier level are so clunky and awkward T_T

Edited by Beeman, 23 February 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[Pihb]

urmamasllama, on 23 February 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

give missiles a hitbox and be unarmored but have a high health while having a payload with a low health so that machine guns have a decent chance at taking them down

Viper69, on 23 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Yeah that makes even less sense than the idea.

Ok, i will break it down for your small mind. If you could shoot down missles with a, say, machine gun, like the op stated. The machine gun would have a use in the game. Now people who boat lrm's, AKA, Mouth breathers, (http://www.urbandict...m=mouthbreather) would cry because then they would actually have to learn to aim to get kills.

[Gaan Cathal]

The game doesn't need more lag, frankly, especially for the minor benefit this would entail. ECM tweaks (it's overtuned, we all know it, PGI have acknowledged, yadda-yadda) should really be combined with a boost to the AMS to make it a really viable option for missile defence - ideally by removing the percentile element for a fixed kill/s number to make AMS domes effective but thwart-able by massed LRM fire (i.e. commensurate amounts of teamwork required).

[AZA311]

I voted yes. LRMS are overpowered. Speed and timing and jump jets can't out maneuver them. Buildings and terrain not much help when they can turn 90 degrees.

For the number of ridiculously fired missiles converging that close together on one target, you are bound to get lucky and be able to shot at least 1 or 2 missiles down - provided that you are nearby!

Just adjust the probability of success accordingly for manual fire, AMS and Laser AMS.

I acknowledge if there are game engine limitations or the marketability aspect if everyone had to have a more decent computer to run the game, shooting down missiles should be possible.

[LordBraxton]

Beliall, on 23 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Love when people like ole mr. _______ here try to reference RL tech aka the m16 to a missile theory even though the "machine guns" on these mechs are very different and much larger than a m16. ( even though any m16 can hurt something past 90m but these cant so RL physics is irrelevant ) Besides that yours Lasers should be able to detonate some of the missiles if shot into the clusters if we want to be hypothetical.

I always think of battletech range as

Past this point weapon cannot effect quality mech armor,

[Merky Merc]

I voted yes, my lasers should cut a path through any inbound missiles. I could probably even post youtube videos of lasers shooting down missiles.

More can be posted about the CIWS sure. But I will then start posting vids of AK-130s, 120mm cannons, 40mm Bofors, m2s, bushmaster cannons, MLRS systems, etc etc etc etc etc

If Battletech were to be redesigned by people who intended for their future mechs to have actual weapon systems then I would be more than happy to play that, I really want to see that happen to be honest. But in it's current form, this is so far from anything that resembles reality that posting things about real weapon systems is meaningless.

[Gaan Cathal]

Merky Merc, on 23 February 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

If Battletech were to be redesigned by people who intended for their future mechs to have actual weapon systems then I would be more than happy to play that, I really want to see that happen to be honest. But in it's current form, this is so far from anything that resembles reality that posting things about real weapon systems is meaningless.

Dear god man, people barely cope now getting destroyed by a 35 ton light mech, can you imagine the rage when an 8 ton drone nukes their cockpit two seconds after their feet hit the floor?

[GoManGo]

Thats what AMS does but it ssuckkss and dont work plus it runs out of ammo in 20 missles.

[jakucha]

ArcherX, on 23 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

The missiles in this game travel very slowly.

There are a lot of weird technology things you'd think would be better by the future, but the B-tech universe was also made with 80s technology in mind.

[Merky Merc]

Gaan Cathal, on 23 February 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

Dear god man, people barely cope now getting destroyed by a 35 ton light mech, can you imagine the rage when an 8 ton drone nukes their cockpit two seconds after their feet hit the floor?

Lol, I'm not saying you have to go all out like that. Some concessions would have to be made to consider mechs as viable weapons. But they could change alot of other things I think. They don't have to worry about us going off the edges of the table in a video game.

[mike29tw]

"MGs can't take down other mechs and is underused. LRMs are OP so we should make MGs able to shoot down missiles!!"

Doesn't that sound extremely familiar? That's exactly what happened to ECM. You are promoting the kind of band-aid solution that has screwed up the game before. ECM didn't happen because PGI are incompetent, ECM is implement the way it is because we asked for it.

Also on a side note, AMS has more range and damage than MGs. To even make MGs marginally useful against missiles, PGI would need to buffs buff its range and damage. But if we buff enough range and damage to the MGs then it would be useful against mechs and we wouldn't need the ability to "shoot down missiles" to make MGs worth their 1.5 ton.

Edited by mike29tw, 23 February 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Ophidian]

Modern (non nuclear) missiles are actually relatively easy to damage, if not destroy. It doesn't take much to stop a missile. The slightest bend in its structure or fin can make it spiral helplessly off course. That's because warheads were never meant to be shot at. They are not armored.

The actual issue is not damaging the missile, but hitting it in the first place.

[Viper69]

Ophidian, on 23 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Modern (non nuclear) missiles are actually relatively easy to damage, if not destroy. It doesn't take much to stop a missile. The slightest bend in its structure or fin can make it spiral helplessly off course. That's because warheads were never meant to be shot at. They are not armored.

The actual issue is not damaging the missile, but hitting it in the first place.

Mainly it is because of their velocity, in MWO we do not have that, they are traveling extremely slow which is why people have this illusion they should be able to shoot at them. At the speed real rockets and missiles are flying any change in their physical dynamic causes catastrophic failure.

Beliall, on 23 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Love when people like ole mr. _______ here try to reference RL tech aka the m16 to a missile theory even though the "machine guns" on these mechs are very different and much larger than a m16. ( even though any m16 can hurt something past 90m but these cant so RL physics is irrelevant ) Besides that yours Lasers should be able to detonate some of the missiles if shot into the clusters if we want to be hypothetical.

What other tech can we reference? You wont accept that battletech already has gear for shooting down missiles. I know our machineguns arent an M16. They also werent meant for shooting down missiles either so they have something in common. As for your laser idea. Later we will get laser anti missile systems. Yet another piece of tech DESIGNED FOR THE ROLE. Again spend some damn tonnage all mechs can field AMS.


So really I dont understand your point in trying to insult me. Next time grow a pair and write out what you what you are leaving blank. If you are going to insult someone at least dont leave people guessing.

Edited by Viper69, 24 February 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[Xyroc]

Viper69, on 24 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Mainly it is because of their velocity, in MWO we do not have that, they are traveling extremely slow which is why people have this illusion they should be able to shoot at them. At the speed real rockets and missiles are flying any change in their physical dynamic causes catastrophic failure.




What other tech can we reference? You wont accept that battletech already has gear for shooting down missiles. I know our machineguns arent an M16. They also werent meant for shooting down missiles either so they have something in common. As for your laser idea. Later we will get laser anti missile systems. Yet another piece of tech DESIGNED FOR THE ROLE. Again spend some damn tonnage all mechs can field AMS.


So really I dont understand your point in trying to insult me. Next time grow a pair and write out what you what you are leaving blank. If you are going to insult someone at least dont leave people guessing.

you mad bro? ... the point is you keep saying " it isnt what it was designed to do" or we have another system designed for that ... but the fact is whether or not something is designed for it doesnt mean it wouldnt be able to do it due to how the things function.

Edited by Beliall, 24 February 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Viper69]

Not mad at all amused actually. Bro.

[Pvt Ortiz]

I voted yes. because, technically, if you would shoot at a missile, it would explode, or loose trajectory or something. Im no expert in weapons. But I know enough that war is also about luck. Its not because someone cant shoot at a missile, that hes not gonna hit it by pure luck. This is like soldiers shooting at planes when they are getting attacked ( WW1, WW2 era plane ) They dont have a lot of chances, but they might as well try it !

I think that missiles should be able to being shot for these reasons. If 6 mechs shoot their lasers on a bunch of missile coming their way, they should be able to at least hit a few of them by chance.