26 replies to this topic

[shellashock]

Shouldn't they curve and fall like an artillery shell once they run out of fuel? I am not new to Mechwarrior Online, but this has always confused me. Is it for balance reasons? Performance reasons?

[Magnificent Bastard]

shellashock, on 26 October 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Shouldn't they curve and fall like an artillery shell once they run out of fuel? I am not new to Mechwarrior Online, but this has always confused me. Is it for balance reasons? Performance reasons?

I'm sure there are several answers to this question but the simplest is: The MechWarrior franchise is based on a Table Top game called BattleTech. So a lot of the core design decisions were made to keep in line with the spirit of BattleTech.

[Small Baguette]

I've always felt like the LRM should be given the "half damage after its maximum range up until twice its range" like other weapons get. Considering they are "long range missiles" they tend to be fairly useless in a lot of actual long range encounters with gauss, ppc and certain ACs being able to dish out damage at much longer ranges.

[Magnificent Bastard]

Uljira, on 26 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I've always felt like the LRM should be given the "half damage after its maximum range up until twice its range" like other weapons get.

The problem with that is the possibility of truly large maps. I doubt MWO will ever have maps the size that I want (I want huge maps with random drop spots so light mechs have a reason to scout). If LRMs went past their max range by a significant margin you might as well not have any max range at all...

[shellashock]

Magnificent *******, on 26 October 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

I'm sure there are several answers to this question but the simplest is: The MechWarrior franchise is based on a Table Top game called BattleTech. So a lot of the core design decisions were made to keep in line with the spirit of BattleTech.

So... Battletech had missiles exploding the second they reached max range? I know that Battletech is science fiction, but I didn't know that the writers were that out there with missile design in the novels. Talk about a waste of a missile!

Also, I am completely fine with long and drawn out explanations (prefer it actually). I am trying to catch up on the lore, so if there is a reason in Battletech for this, then send me a link to your source from sarna or one of the novels or post the section in this thread please.

[Durant Carlyle]

Uljira, on 26 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I've always felt like the LRM should be given the "half damage after its maximum range up until twice its range" like other weapons get.

Missiles carry a limited amount of fuel. They cannot go farther than their range because of that limit, so there's no point in having that mechanic for them.

[Small Baguette]

I get that reasoning, I just mean from a gameplay/balancing/actual usefulness aspect for LRMs.

[Magnificent Bastard]

shellashock, on 26 October 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

So... Battletech had missiles exploding the second they reached max range? I know that Battletech is science fiction, but I didn't know that the writers were that out there with missile design in the novels. Talk about a waste of a missile!

Also, I am completely fine with long and drawn out explanations (prefer it actually). I am trying to catch up on the lore, so if there is a reason in Battletech for this, then send me a link to your source from sarna or one of the novels or post the section in this thread please.

You misunderstand. BattleTech doesn't have missiles explode upon reaching max range because of sci-fi lore... it has them explode upon hitting max range to make the rules of the table top game simplier and more balanced. Just like any table top game you have to have a max range for ranged weaponry. In Warhammer 40k for example... guns have a max range but obviously the bullets would travel further in real life. It's just a game. It can't be 100% realistic.

[shellashock]

Ah ok. From a game balance point it probably isn't that big a problem because they can't really go any further then maybe another 100 m if they are high in the air from indirect fire. However, it would be more costly on the engine because it has additional physics to calculate. Not to mention that it simply is simpler just to make them explode then to have to calculate how much more distance they can go and at what angle depending on when they ran out of fuel. Thanks for the explanation!

[Corison]

They end at 1000m, because the Dev's decided Long Range Missiles should be the shortest ranged of all the standoff weapons... (AC10s out to 1300, Gauss out to 2000)... I think one of the devs got smashed by missiles one day and decided they were to good at range.


Short story, there isn't any lore reason or theme reason to it. Its an arb number they picked to balance the homing ability of missiles to their damage. Unlike direct fire weapons, they were not given the double or triple range option for reduced damage.

[XphR]

Concussion faeries.

[scJazz]

How about this for an explanation. The Ares Convention which is still observed though not in effect quite specifically frowns upon indiscriminate destruction.

http://www.sarna.net...Ares_Convention

Once a missile is out of fuel its ability to guide is severely limited, so the weapon explodes rather than landing "anywhere".

This is a common feature of current modern guided weapons.

You could argue that an LRM still has limited guidance once it is out of fuel. Just for the sake of arguement lets say it runs out at 800m and is considered no longer guidable at 1000m and call it a day.

Edited by scJazz, 27 October 2013 - 04:23 AM.

[Bront]

Uljira, on 26 October 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I've always felt like the LRM should be given the "half damage after its maximum range up until twice its range" like other weapons get. Considering they are "long range missiles" they tend to be fairly useless in a lot of actual long range encounters with gauss, ppc and certain ACs being able to dish out damage at much longer ranges.

This is more an issue of how extended ranges are somewhat broken in MWO than LRM ranges being a hard limit. That said, I think if LRMs had reduced tracking and range between 1000 and 1500 (basically, they maneuver less and spread out a bit) I wouldn't be against it. Heck, do the same with SRMs (make them start to dip a bit or continue to spread so they're even more inacurate 50% further out). I'm fine with SSRMs not having any extended range.

Currently, energy weapons get almost double range (though they're not very effective past 150% range), and balistics get almost triple range (while not being as effective beyond double range). The result is oddities like the AC20 doing more damage than an AC10 till around 600m despite having a "range" of 270 vs 450, or AC10 doing more damage than an AC5 beyond 900m, so the AC5, AC2, Gauss, PPC/ERPPC, and ERLL can be effective well over 1000m (hell, even an AC10 can to some degree). It's part of why Balistics are generally very desirable right now.

Edit: I see SCJazz has a lovely IG explanation, but given how MWO handles extended ranges, I think LRMs could get some range loving too, particularly since it would already be difficult to get locks at ranges that long.

Edited by Bront, 27 October 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Marchant Consadine]

scJazz, on 27 October 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

How about this for an explanation. The Ares Convention which is still observed though not in effect quite specifically frowns upon indiscriminate destruction.

http://www.sarna.net...Ares_Convention

Once a missile is out of fuel its ability to guide is severely limited, so the weapon explodes rather than landing "anywhere".

This is a common feature of current modern guided weapons.

You could argue that an LRM still has limited guidance once it is out of fuel. Just for the sake of arguement lets say it runs out at 800m and is considered no longer guidable at 1000m and call it a day.

This. Although I've never heard of Ares convention I am well aware that today most armies and nations try to avoid any unexploded ordnance left on the battlefield. Would be weird if this wasn't so in the future.

Whole another point is that 1000 meters is considered long range, but ridiculously short ranges are a common theme in games meant to make fighting more interesting (which it does, go read starship troopers and think if that would be the kind of mech combat you'd prefer), so you just have to accept it.

Edit: just in case I have to clarify that by read I mean read. The movie has very little to do with the book.

Edited by Marchant Consadine, 27 October 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Marchant Consadine, on 27 October 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

This. Although I've never heard of Ares convention I am well aware that today most armies and nations try to avoid any unexploded ordnance left on the battlefield. Would be weird if this wasn't so in the future.

Whole another point is that 1000 meters is considered long range, but ridiculously short ranges are a common theme in games meant to make fighting more interesting (which it does, go read starship troopers and think if that would be the kind of mech combat you'd prefer), so you just have to accept it.

Edit: just in case I have to clarify that by read I mean read. The movie has very little to do with the book.

The Ares Convention is the BT equivalent of the Geneva Convention.

Also, the movie is a good movie, but yea has little to do with the book other than the names of the characters and bad guys. The book is highly recommended.

[Helsbane]

LRMs not only need a range boost, they need a speed boost as well. The current damage level is fine, they just need to go faster and a touch farther.

[Koniving]

They fire quite frequently and travel more than fast enough. I'd honestly rather that they fire less frequently but do considerably more damage. Unlike most weapons in MWO which do tabletop damage or superior, LRMs are still inferior to actual tabletop damage (instead opting for being able to spam them faster and faster).

Given that there are projectile spam problems, less frequent but stronger LRMs would seem like a given solution.

[Bront]

Koniving, on 27 October 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

They fire quite frequently and travel more than fast enough. I'd honestly rather that they fire less frequently but do considerably more damage. Unlike most weapons in MWO which do tabletop damage or superior, LRMs are still inferior to actual tabletop damage (instead opting for being able to spam them faster and faster).

Given that there are projectile spam problems, less frequent but stronger LRMs would seem like a given solution.

Actually, they do more damage per missile than TT, at 1.1 damage per missile vs the TT of 1.0

[Vanguard319]

shellashock, on 26 October 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Shouldn't they curve and fall like an artillery shell once they run out of fuel? I am not new to Mechwarrior Online, but this has always confused me. Is it for balance reasons? Performance reasons?

I would assume it is to prevent excessive collateral damage from missed volleys. Even modern land mines are designed to become inert or self-destruct after a set period of time. (specifically, this is to prevent civilians from being maimed by them after a war has ended) It's not unreasonable to think that LRMS/SRMs are designed to self destruct after the missiles fuel has run out to prevent the now out-of control missile from destroying the wrong target. (again, pretty important in an era where centuries of total war have led to severe technological stagnation, you would want to try to preserve some of what's left.) Another bonus: there is no unexploded ordinance for guerillas to convert into IEDs.

[Corison]

Bront, on 27 October 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Actually, they do more damage per missile than TT, at 1.1 damage per missile vs the TT of 1.0

1.1 damage... against doubled armor.