16 replies to this topic

[Tewaz]

The Mech Mortar

Yes the Mech Mortor!
-An indirect fire support weapon with a whole lot of versatility.
-Armor piercing, Flare, and smoke ammunition.
-Mech Mortars come in 4 variants Mech Mortar/1, /2, /4, and /8
-Large minimum range.


Example
Mech Mortar/1
Slot Type: Ballistic
Tons: 2
Slots: 1
Damage: 2
Heat: 1
Min Range: 225m
Max Range: 1400m

The low tonnage of the MM/1 (Mech Mortar/1) would allow light and mediums to drop with it in a ballistics hardpoint without sacrificing much. The alternate ammunition could grant more of a support role or the AP ammo would give them a way of throwing down at those pesky turtlers.


While traditionally slotted into missile hardpoints I think that in MW:O it would fit better into a Ballistics slot allowing for more diverse loadouts and giving ballistics a low tonnage option other than MG's.


So would you like to see this in game? Vote and post your thoughts!

Edits for rndm stuff.

Edited by Tewaz, 20 January 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[Prezimonto]

http://mwomercs.com/...n-mech-mortars/
for more discussion on the topic.

They should take up missile hard points. As if ballistics need more love in this game.

[Tewaz]

Prezimonto, on 20 January 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...n-mech-mortars/
for more discussion on the topic.

They should take up missile hard points. As if ballistics need more love in this game.

Dang that thread is huge, we need to get that back up and running! I like ballistic/or missile mortars either way just want them in game!

Edited by Tewaz, 20 January 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[Zerberus]

Prezimonto, on 20 January 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...n-mech-mortars/
for more discussion on the topic.

They should take up missile hard points. As if ballistics need more love in this game.

ROFL??

This is not "giving ballistics love", this is "adding a hard to aim indiorect fire weapon to where a pinpoint accurate direct fire weapon used to go".

That is practically the exact opposite of "giving them love", because it is the antithesis of everything a ballistic is supposed to be.

Or are you saying that if it goes on a Ballistic HP it`s OP, but if it goes on a missile hardpoint it`s not, even if it thereby ruins some stock loadouts and makes the entire concept of a true indirect fire only mech (what it was designed to facilitate) a complete farce and by extension the inclusion of the weapon itself almost absolutely pointless, simply becasue LRMs do teh exact same thing, over a similar range, and have GUIDANCE. The only thing a mortar can do that LRMs can't is fire LRMs behind someone`s cover w/o a spotter or LOS.

I can`t shake teh feeling that it sounds like wanting to keep the ballistics for sure, and add another one to a missile slot because "missiles are lame". And THAT WOULD be showing ballistics love, because now you don`t have to choose between cannons or mortars, you can have both.

Edited by Zerberus, 20 January 2014 - 09:59 PM.

[Prezimonto]

I'm saying that ballistics don't need more variety. They're already better than the other weapon systems, and providing a wider variety for them makes little sense where missile hard points are
A) worse because they're LRM's need too much support
worse because SRM's are very short range and have poor hit detection
C) SSRM's are useless against large mechs in most situations.

Add that mortars are categorized like missiles and would need tubes (like missile hard points have) to fire barrages.
Add that they would round out a position in lacking in the missile category (long range usefulness without support needed).
Add that missiles are the home of indirect fire mechanics already... and give this to ballistic hard points is going to be a huge buff.

...and I think you have an obvious case for mortars to be missile hard points and not ballistic.

[Tewaz]

I would like the Mech Mortar to be a Ballistic hardpoint simply to put more options into for low ton mechs, lights and mediums. Missiles already have a good spacing of tonnage from SRMs all the way up to an LRM 20 stack. I think ballistics could use something to that effect, they already have the high end covered but the low end consists of the MG which doesn't do anyone favors.

[Zerberus]

Prezimonto, on 21 January 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

I'm saying that ballistics don't need more variety. They're already better than the other weapon systems, and providing a wider variety for them makes little sense where missile hard points are
A) worse because they're LRM's need too much support
worse because SRM's are very short range and have poor hit detection
C) SSRM's are useless against large mechs in most situations.

Add that mortars are categorized like missiles and would need tubes (like missile hard points have) to fire barrages.
Add that they would round out a position in lacking in the missile category (long range usefulness without support needed).
Add that missiles are the home of indirect fire mechanics already... and give this to ballistic hard points is going to be a huge buff.

...and I think you have an obvious case for mortars to be missile hard points and not ballistic.

I think we need to agree to disagree on this one....

A mortar does not need "tubes" because it can not fire "barrages".. it needs "a tube" because it can fire "a round" mortar =/= airstrike, a single mortar impact is more like a very large grenade than anything else.... But a single shot from any main battle tank`s primary weapon will cause endlessly more destruction.

Also, by definition, mortars are ballistic weapons. There is no rocket driving the projectile, just the propellant charge that was set off by the firing pin in the bottom of the tube when the round slid down... so exactly the way a gun fires, just 45° +/- off ... but it still follows a truly ballistic, unpowered flight path.

And there`s also the whole thing with invalidating some canon loadouts by suddenly turning their ballistic HP fro the mortar into a Missile HP.... And that will probably **** a whole lot of people off

Edited by Zerberus, 21 January 2014 - 08:13 PM.

[Prezimonto]

About all I can say is that I can much less about honoring TT and much more about game balance. And adding more functionality to ballistic hardpoints while missiles are in the state they are, is game breaking.

[Zerberus]

Prezimonto, on 21 January 2014 - 08:20 PM, said:

About all I can say is that I can much less about honoring TT and much more about game balance. And adding more functionality to ballistic hardpoints while missiles are in the state they are, is game breaking.

And I disagree on that functionality being game breaking. In fact, as has been alluded to by another, people have been clamoring for a ballistic between teh MG and the AC2 for ages, and Mortars can actually fill that range out nicely... they just don`t do the pinpoint aiming thing well at all

That said: Streaks were never intended as an "anti larger mech" weapon, they were always predominantly for use against lights, even in TT. If you want to hit something slower, you don`t need homing missiles, that`s what SRMs are for.

But, just for theory, let`s just assume that Missiles were "fine" (which I personally feel that they are with the exception of SRM HSR, which still does not stop me from using them): Would it still "break the game" as a ballistic? Or just allow more interesting and diverse loadouts?

In other words, is your issue with it being a ballistic at all, or just because you feel that missiles need love?

Edited by Zerberus, 21 January 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Zerberus, on 21 January 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

And I disagree on that functionality being game breaking. In fact, as has been alluded to by another, people have been clamoring for a ballistic between teh MG and the AC2 for ages, and Mortars can actually fill that range out nicely... they just don`t do the pinpoint aiming thing well at all

That said: Streaks were never intended as an "anti larger mech" weapon, they were always predominantly for use against lights, even in TT. If you want to hit something slower, you don`t need homing missiles, that`s what SRMs are for.

But, just for theory, let`s just assume that Missiles were "fine" (which I personally feel that they are with the exception of SRM HSR, which still does not stop me from using them): Would it still "break the game" as a ballistic? Or just allow more interesting and diverse loadouts?

In other words, is your issue with it being a ballistic at all, or just because you feel that missiles need love?

It's actually some of both. Missiles need love, but even compared to energy weapons ballistics need to be toned back. Now if ammo was given a 50 to 100% explosion chance when destroyed, I'd be much happier with ballistics. It's not single weapons that are the problems, but rather the power gained from having more than one on the same mech. Higher ammo explosion rates would actually decrease the want to boat both LRM's and ballistics... which would give more head room to change missiles and then I wouldn't mind if ballistic hard points also got some love.

[Zerberus]

^^ Fair enough, thank you

[Ziogualty]

I would like to see this weapon used to counter poptart: you see an enemy popping? Then saturate the landing area with mortar shell!
Could be intriguing in terms of gameplay and new metas.

[Flying Judgement]

The munitions used by the mortars, though often possessing limited guidance packages, weren't destroyed by AMS systems in tests. Mortar shells also proved very adaptable, accepting several types of payloads including Anti-Personnel, Armor-Piercing, Flare, Smoke, and Semi-Guided.

Wooo HOOO Flare and Smoke screan YES
that would shake up some fights

[Flying Judgement]

i would say lets have both tipe Between the MG- AC2 we have a huge tonage gap and there are no middle weapon options.
but there are just a few ballistic mechs and they would rather use hard hitting ACs instead so not to many ppl would use it.

missiles on the other hand comes with almost every chasis and could be utilized bettwen LRM and SRM. a lot of mech cant realy do anything with the missile hardpoints LRMs need range and Lock and SRMs are to short. non of them is a real midle range weapon mortars would fitt in and we would see many variety all the phoneix mechs for instance...

So i wote for misiles or 2 different tipe of mortar an AC and a Misile one at the same time with diferent functions.

Edited by Flying Judgement, 23 January 2014 - 02:36 AM.

[Flying Judgement]

its probably the best anty poptart weapon ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

devs u should look in to this before more nerfing u may need to buff them against mortars woaa yeah man is realy should be missiles so we would have more anty poptart weapons and force campers from hideing and encourage tunnel fights

[Tewaz]

Flying Judgement, on 23 January 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

The munitions used by the mortars, though often possessing limited guidance packages, weren't destroyed by AMS systems in tests. Mortar shells also proved very adaptable, accepting several types of payloads including Anti-Personnel, Armor-Piercing, Flare, Smoke, and Semi-Guided.

Wooo HOOO Flare and Smoke screan YES
that would shake up some fights

I want smoke screens in this game so bad!!!! Would make my year, lol.

[Khobai]

mech mortars would be a good test weapon to see if long toms are viable