111 replies to this topic

[Reitrix]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

And base that targeting solution off the placement of the weapon, not the placement of the pilot's head. My point exactly. Basic targeting computers. That has been part of the lore of BT the entire time.... even in the Stone Age of the 80's.

I have no issue with the idea of targeting computers in our 'Mechs handling convergence solutions.
It should require that you be locked onto a 'Mech in order to get convergence though.

My 'Mech has no idea what is under my reticle, unless i get a sensor lock on it. And being able to see Mechs form across the entire battlefield is kind of stupid. I can see and shoot down the AWS on the hill of the upper base from just outside the lower base.
If i have low settings of course. If i have high settings on, I'm punishing myself by not being able to see such vast distances.

I would agree to convergence as long as it required a sensor lock.

But seriously, Range is more of an issue to me than Convergence.Since i can be hit by Ballistics/ERPPCs from 1k+, i have no idea whats firing from where except that theres smoke all over me and all i can hear is plinkplinkplink as some dude with a row of AC2's hits me from way outside the range he should be able to.

As an LRM based A1, the only return fire from 1000 meters i should expect, is LRMs.
Not half the direct fire weapons in the game.

[OneEyed Jack]

It converges on the point under the crosshairs. Why would it need a lock for something a simple rangefinder can do? [Edited to add] For that matter, converging on a locked target would make leading targets a LOT easier, since you'd be converging on their range instead of the range of whatever is in the background.

As for LRMs, I don't work for PGI, but I expect they decided that the only weapons in the game capable of firing from the complete safety of blocking cover shouldn't also have the longest range. I kinda agree. They're battlefield missiles, called Long Range to differentiate them from Short Range, not freaking cruise missiles. They've never had the longest range, nor should they. (OK, maybe in the boxed set before the weapons were fleshed out)

Don't always know who's shooting at you? Tell me, in what FPS do you always know where you're being shot from without having to look around and spot them?

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 11 December 2013 - 06:41 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

OneEyed Jack, on 11 December 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

Don't always know who's shooting at you? Tell me, in what FPS do you always know where you're being shot from without having to look around and spot them?

I know its about game balancing.... but Mech systems should be able to track you when you are hiding in a bush and make a poop. They should be capable by any means - to identify the source of shooting. And mark it on your HUD.
Funny eh? they can move multi tons weapons from all different angles - and hit a dime at 1500m but are unable to track something that weights 100tons and is runnig 50kph

However as you has said - MWO is more a kind of a shooter.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 11 December 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Reitrix]

OneEyed Jack, on 11 December 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

It converges on the point under the crosshairs. Why would it need a lock for something a simple rangefinder can do? [Edited to add] For that matter, converging on a locked target would make leading targets a LOT easier, since you'd be converging on their range instead of the range of whatever is in the background.

As for LRMs, I don't work for PGI, but I expect they decided that the only weapons in the game capable of firing from the complete safety of blocking cover shouldn't also have the longest range. I kinda agree. They're battlefield missiles, called Long Range to differentiate them from Short Range, not freaking cruise missiles. They've never had the longest range, nor should they. (OK, maybe in the boxed set before the weapons were fleshed out)

Don't always know who's shooting at you? Tell me, in what FPS do you always know where you're being shot from without having to look around and spot them?

LRMs detonate harmlessly at exactly 1000. No ifs or buts. 1000 and fireworks in the sky.
They are also defeated by AMS on the target.
They are also defeated by AMS of nearby units.
They are also defeated by moving and/or powering down in cover.
To fire indirectly, requires a friendly to target an appropriate 'Mech.
Every 'Mech receives a warning about missiles the instant it leaves my Tubes.
Anyone looking even slightly up can determine the exact location of the shooter.
Missiles splatter all over the target, if they even get there.
If target lock breaks, missiles stop tracking.
Is entirely useless when the enemy carries ECM.

vs ...

Direct Fire weapons can be fired without a sensor lock.
Direct Fire weapons outrange the LRM.
Direct Fire weapons leave little to no trail evidence leading back to the shooter.
Direct Fire weapons (except standard PPCs) have no minimum range.
Direct Fire weapons place their entire damage potential into a single, user specified location.
Direct Fire Weapons can be fired at targets that are barely distinguishable in the distance.
Direct Fire Weapons can fired and the user twists away to protect CT.
Direct Fire weapons don't care about ECM.

Now tell me, which weapons have the advantage?
In BT Lore, the only weapon with a range greater than the LRM, was the ER LRM.

The problem we have with LRMs in MWO is that you can take too many reloads. 'Mechs in stock loadouts would only carry one or two tons of reloads for a single launcher, sometimes two Launchers.
Here we can have 15 tons of reloads and six Launchers.

I believe we need canon ranges in the game.

[Karl Streiger]

Reitrix, on 11 December 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

In BT Lore, the only weapon with a range greater than the LRM, was the ER LRM.

Until the SL tech shows up - only the AC 2 did exceed the range of the LRM - after that Gauss and ER-PPC had more range too. (30 an 60m)

However you are right about the rest

Edited by Karl Streiger, 11 December 2013 - 07:38 AM.

[Reitrix]

Karl Streiger, on 11 December 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

Until the SL tech shows up - only the AC 2 did exceed the range of the LRM - after that Gauss and ER-PPC had more range too. (30 an 60m)

However you are right about the rest

Lol yeah, LR for AC2 is 24, LRM sits at 21. Hurray for misreading Sarna slightly.
However, it also states a minimum range of 4. Not quite sure what that translates to for us in MWO though. the AC5 has the 3 minimum.
However since the PPC states a min range of 3 also, I'd hazard a guess and say the AC2 had a min range of 120 in MWO terms. With the AC5 having the same min range as a standard PPC.
10s and 20s didn't.

Wonder what'd happen if we gave them the min ranges Lore said they have, lol.

[Karl Streiger]

Reitrix, on 11 December 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Wonder what'd happen if we gave them the min ranges Lore said they have, lol.

people will start to range - and will find explanations with real weapons and firing range...bla bla bla

but when LRM has there 180m minimum range (dealing no damage) and PPCs 90m dealing no damage - it would be adequate to have those minimum range for those weapons that are supposed to have it.
I don't give a damn about logic or realism - Ghost Heat is neighter too

[Nothing Whatsoever]

LRMs are too slow to be able to dumb fire them like Ballistics. Missiles in general need a boost in their speed. Maybe 250 m/s is enough for LRMs and SSRMs, while 425 m/s might work for SRMs, along with changes to how missiles get tracked, they currently seem to be tracked individually.

Maybe they can be grouped together, LRMs tracked in groups of five (four groups of 5 from a single LRM 20 for example), (S)SRMs in groups of two maybe (three groups of two from an SRM 6). Then instead of AMS reducing the Hit Points of individual missiles, maybe have it directly reduce the damage before the groups hit a target.



Then with Canon Ranges, could make things interesting applying them, but I'm not sure if those would work with the current map sizes, maybe if we include BT Extreme Range? (Calculated using this table, used 'max value' x 30)

• Weapon | Long Range | Extreme Range | Min Range
  
• LRMs | 630 M | 840 M | 180 M
  
• (S)SRMs | 270 M | 360 M
  
• Gauss | 660 M | 900 M | 60 M
  
• ERPPC | 690 M | 840 M
  
• PPC | 540 M | 720 M | 90 M
  
• ERLL | 570 M | 840 M
  
• LL | 450 M | 600 M
  
• LPL | 300 M | 420 M
  
• ML | 270 M | 360 M
  
• MPL | 180 M | 240 M
  
• SL | 90 M | 120 M
  
• SPL | 90 M | 120 M
  
• MGs | 90 M | 120 M
  
• AC/2 | 720 M | 960 M | 120 M
  
• AC/5 | 540 M | 720 M | 90 M
  
• UAC/5 | 600 M | 780 M | 60 M
  
• AC/10 | 450 M | 600 M
  
• LB 10-X AC | 540 M | 720 M
  
• AC/20 | 270 M | 360 M

Then, instead of treating each Hex as 30 M, maybe a different value could be used if the ranges are too short, such as 40 M or 45 M.

[Karl Streiger]

Extreme range is the medium range bracket multiplied with factor 2
to hit modifer was +6

Those range brackets PGI was so eager to ignore (the reason why the game will never advance into time line above 3060) not without a complete rework

Edited by Karl Streiger, 11 December 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

Too many points to break up into separate quotes, So I bolded my response.

Reitrix, on 11 December 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

LRMs detonate harmlessly at exactly 1000. No ifs or buts. 1000 and fireworks in the sky. Every weapon stops doing damage past it's max range.
They are also defeated by AMS on the target. Reduced, not automatically defeated.
They are also defeated by AMS of nearby units. Reduced, not automatically defeated.
They are also defeated by moving and/or powering down in cover. Only if you've lost lock before they do. Otherwise they'll be standing there shut down being rained on. If the cover blocks, it would have anyway.
To fire indirectly, requires a friendly to target an appropriate 'Mech. What does it take to fire any other weapon in the game indirectly? Oh, that's right... they can't.
Every 'Mech receives a warning about missiles the instant it leaves my Tubes. Valid.
Anyone looking even slightly up can determine the exact location of the shooter. Invalid, as other weapons also track back to the shooter, and all other weapons require already being visible even before ever firing a shot.
Missiles splatter all over the target, if they even get there. Correct, their extremely high damage/ton for a long-range weapon is not pinpoint. Do you think it should be? (Hint: It can also be mitigated)
If target lock breaks, missiles stop tracking. And this is a disadvantage compared to direct-fire how?
Is entirely useless when the enemy carries ECM. Seriously? If you can't figure out how to get around ECM by now, you have no business commenting on the pros and cons of LRMs.
You forgot:
LRMs have zero damage drop-off. They are the only weapon in the game that does full damage at 1000m.
vs ...

Direct Fire weapons can be fired without a sensor lock. But require much more precise aiming and LOS.
Direct Fire weapons outrange the LRM. Some of them, yes.
Direct Fire weapons leave little to no trail evidence leading back to the shooter. All of the energy weapons leave a pretty good trail. In fact lasers point to exactly where they are right now, rather than where they were when they pressed the fire button. And all direct fire weapon require the shooter already be in LOS prior to firing.
Direct Fire weapons (except standard PPCs) have no minimum range. Valid.
Direct Fire weapons place their entire damage potential into a single, user specified location. "User specified" is not automatic, and requires additional precision aim even beyond just the difference between hitting with them and guided missiles. And all at less damage per ton or considerably shorter range.
Direct Fire Weapons can be fired at targets that are barely distinguishable in the distance. Missiles can also be fired at targets that they will never hit, or hit for little damage, if you feel like wasting ammo.
Direct Fire Weapons can fired and the user twists away to protect CT. Indirect missiles can be fired with a hill or building protecting not just your torso, but the entire mech.
Direct Fire weapons don't care about ECM. Incorrect. The "user specified location" you referred to is considerably less helpful if you can't see the paper-doll.

Now tell me, which weapons have the advantage? Situational. I can tell you which would have complete advantage if guided missiles, being the only weapon in the game with no damage fall-off, requiring no precision aiming to hit at extreme ranges, and also able to fire from complete safety, also had the longest range.
In BT Lore, the only weapon with a range greater than the LRM, was the ER LRM. Where you are incorrect has already been addressed, so I'll just point out that in BT, standard LRMs are not guided.

[Karl Streiger]

OneEyed Jack, on 12 December 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Too many points to break up into separate quotes, So I bolded my response.

How to quote the quoted?....
however regarding guidance....you can not say that LRM in the LORE are NOT guided.
If so how should Artemis work? Somebody still have to explain how artemis guidance works for MWO SRMs eighter.

Again considering missiles - i dunno about Mechwarrior 1 - but since MW2 - LRMs and SSRMs were always guided - (can't exactly remember SRMs in MW3 but i believe there were guided too)
In MW 4 - the SSRM were as guided as the LRM but you didn't need need to lock on.

The first "dead fire missiles" of BT Lore (considering the introduction in a source book -were SRM and LRM DF Missiles - with increased damage in the Tactical Handbook.
MRM followed - not guided
Rocket Launcher - not guided (and with backward corrected lore - should be available)

So - not LRM are not guided - but SRM should be guided. And the only difference between SRM and SSRM guidance must be the accuracy maybe the turn rate and speed of those missiles.

BTW: save me with lock on weapons are no skill weapons.
You exaggerate when you are saying "LRM can fire from safety, have no drop off damage and don't need precise aiming!"

You don't need precise aiming for any weapon in MWO - something that should called aiming should need more time (not simple hand - eye coordination - i really wished we would have a kind of "Torpedo Data Computer" instead of mouse aiming

[OneEyed Jack]

Karl Streiger, on 12 December 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

BTW: save me with lock on weapons are no skill weapons.
You exaggerate when you are saying "LRM can fire from safety, have no drop off damage and don't need precise aiming!"

There an enormous difference between putting the little reticle directly on a moving target, especially at range, and putting it in the general area. Not to mention leading a moving target or compensating for your own movement and any terrain jostling. The skills to successfully use LRMs are completely different from those to successfully use direct fire weapons. At no point did I say they were "no skill weapons."

And there is absolutely no exaggeration about firing from safety for lack of damage drop off. You can shoot at people that literally cannot shoot back. Let me reiterate, because you seem to be having trouble understanding. You can shoot people that have no possibility of returning fire. And your weapons do exactly the same damage at max range as minimum range.

As for BT LRMs not being guided, aside from the possibility of indirect fire (which doesn't remotely compare to MWO indirect fire), they fire exactly like any other weapon. They require the same gunnery checks as any direct-fire weapon, with the possibility of cleanly missing a target at optimal range, with both shooter and target standing still and no cover. And even when they hit, an average of 40% of the total missiles will still miss! While they may technically be "guided" in the lore, they are not guided in the way they are in MWO.