You mean when SRMS were bugged, no I wouldn't want that. That mindset is the reason why people think SRMS are broken. Now they work like they should, CRIT HUNTERS!
Nope. The reason we don't like how SRMs are right now is due to the dumb sniper meta. We'd like some variety, broken weapons or not.
I would prefer they get SRMs to where they register damage more than half the time when you use them. They're still capable of doing solid damage when they hit - but that's the big question. Every time you pull the trigger it's a crapshoot (even if you hit dead center with the volley). I'd rather they address that ASAP than goof around with the other mechanics. They've literally been acknowledged as "broken" for nearly a year now. I know Paul said it would take a while... but it's kind of been a while It'd be nice to have an update on where things stand. And with pulse lasers too while we're at it?
I am with Joseph on this one. We definitely don't need SRMs to converge on a single location under any circumstances. They do need a fairly large damage buff though (on a side note, LBX needs a similar buff).
However, SRMs could be potentially better and balanced at the same time if they rippled fired very quickly like MW2, and from there it would simply be a matter of adjusting speed and damage. So if SRMs were changed for the ability for them to hit the same spot, a ripple fire mechanic could easily balance it, since A. You are not guaranteed to be hitting the same spot, unless you are skilled B. Damage is still potentially spread/random and C. It would look damn cool and make the mechanic of firing them more unique (like firing hellfire missiles from your Mech)
Then Artemis SRM's could be changed to be 'accurate' simply if they were to sort of follow the cursor as they fire, rather than straight.
As it is right now, they fire slow, and they fire at the same time, so its hard enough for them to adjust their current, less than stellar mechanics.
Edited by General Taskeen, 14 February 2014 - 06:58 PM.
they don't need a dam boost, they don't need pinpoint and if want srm's to lock on use ssrm's(and ask the dev's to add the other ssrm's 4's n 6's)
also ive found that:
3 srm4s do more dam then 2 srm6s when fired at he same time..
3 srm4s chain fired do more dam then 3 srm4s shot at the same time.
2 srm6s chain fired do more dam then 2 srm6s shot at the same time.
seems the more srm's fired at once the more hit reg issues ull get.
I've been saying this for a long time. The sad thing is... it's also true of LRMs.
----------
As for the ideas here. I've been reading and apparently SRMs are guided. Though less sophisticated than LRMs, SRMs had simple guidance that (book fluff only) used heat sources as targets.
The below is paraphrased and summarized:
Their "lack of maneuverability" (described as similar to Streaks -- as in those can't turn too well either!) is intentional as the SRMs went after heat sources and could easily be tricked. (i.e. Stand near lava; if it's hotter than you the missiles go for it).
Since this and other natural and unnatural thermal phenomenon could actually mask enemy mechs, the use of Artemis Control Software allows a dedicated targeting processor to communicate with and manipulate the SRMs based on the user's currently selected target, significantly increasing the likelihood of hitting the intended target.
ECM, however, can interfere with and jam communication between the missiles and the independent processor. Without the ability to receive its the Artemis signals, SRMs default to their standard heat-based guidance.
Since SRMs are easily confused by heat signatures, the existence of an active NARC missile beacon signature instantly overrides SRM default guidance if it is within the SRM's range. Immediately terminating their current engagement, like fighter jets they roll and pitch for a sharp turn towards the NARC and converge like an army of bulls to a red cloth.
In fact, the one reference to this happening in detail describes the SRMs as lifeless mechanical zombies following routine to that become ravenous carnivores, twisting and spiraling around each other until literally hammering their prey in their kamikaze run.
------
On that note, Streaks.
Streaks come with an advanced targeting and autonomous radio control hardware and software. Tech from long ago and lost.
Once Streaks come up with a firing solution that cannot miss, they will be capable of firing. Always the arrogant perfectionist the system will not permit a missile to fire unless it will hit.
Because of this system's complex control, it can only control 2 missiles at a time, requiring a half-ton communications array, computer equipment, etc., for each Streak SRM-2 launcher.
Interestingly enough this, minus the ability to fire if it can't hit, would have been very accurate for Streaks (and something similar but prone to drifting and dispersal spread for SRMs as other heat-based objects may draw their incredibly short attention span).
This...is not.
-----------
On another note, LRMs from what I'm reading do not require a sustained lock. (Remember, I am not reading rule books but tech fluff and Battletech books where the tech is in use.) They are simply fire and forget once locked. Of course this depends on the manufacturer. So far I've seen the following methods of fire:
Targeted location. (Pilot targets a specific location.)
Ballistic Launch. (Pilot tilts launchers to fire directly at target in shotgun pattern; common in clans but apparently started before Kerensky's men ever departed for the Stars. This is essentially firing like PGI's SRMs.)
Targeting NARC Beacon radio signature.
Targeted Mech; general. (Fast lock). Targeting a specific profile and shape.
Targeted Component. (Slower lock). Ability to choose and target a specific body part.
Artemis-controlled specified flight path. (?) Using a pen-like tool to draw a flight path on a screen (funny enough the book was written before 1993) so that the LRMs would curve between two buildings and hit an enemy in the backside where that enemy's sensors wouldn't give warning.
Note that unlike MWO (which requires line of sight to enhance LRMs), and most mechwarrior games, Battletech fluff lore is the polar opposite. Book fluff LRMs cannot be locked on a target that is not within line of sight, even if spotted by another mech. It is instead calibrated and dumbfired by estimation and spotter feedback. (Bit of a pain I confess). However line of sight is no longer required once missiles have been given a profile to go after (locked) from line of sight.
Standard LRM Non-LOS lock could only be achieved via the use of a NARC missile beacon.
On the other hand, Artemis can yet cannot use the communication and targeting data of fellow units (when combined with a C3 Network) to target enemies outside of line of sight (Evidently the book authors could not agree on this).
And in certain totally "b.s." books be used to turn regular Artemis enhanced LRMs butt-seeking rockets that can weave between buildings in a city. But I take that one with a grain of salt. That story's missile path sort of alienates the nature of Artemis as an isolated, autonomous computer-controlled system that the pilot cannot interact with beyond establishing a target and choosing when to fire.
Artemis does provide significantly more accurate trajectory information to LRMs within line of sight.
Unlike normal LRMs, Artemis-enhanced LRMs require line of sight regardless to maintain lock as the guidance system is mech-mounted, not missile mounted.
The line of sight lock, fire and forget nature of standard LRM is lost on the Artemis-enhanced LRM. If line of sight is lost with Artemis, lock is lost.
Standard LRMs feature a fire and forget nature that cannot lock indirectly, but once locked can be maintained in an arc-to-target path. The standard LRM itself carries the guidance system and if the missile itself loses line of sight, then the lock is lost. Unfortunately, standard LRMs (dependent on the manufacturer) use a very limited set of parameters for target profile. In one story it was shape; where it confused an identical chassis ally for its target. In another, it was power signature (less likely to have mistakes that way), but powering down broke the lock even with line of sight, causing the missile to 'search' and eventually self-terminate.
Another note: TAG does NOTHING for standard LRMs and Artemis LRMs in the books. Nothing. Nothing. Nada.
As an alternative, however, Semi-Guided LRMs also exist. These are not only compatible with TAG, evidently a single TAG laser could draw and control the SG-LRMs even if they were intended for other targets. Like a cat to a laser pointer, SG-LRMs can follow the point of a TAG like a moth to a moving lighter in a dark room. The issue was the ammunition cost. Like Artemis-enhanced missiles, Semi-Guided LRMs were quite expensive. But hey, they're a spotter's wet dream. LRMs that will seek your TAGged target even if dumbfired in the opposite direction! No locks necessary so long as a TAG is in use.
Because this brought some confusion and because I pulled up a Sarna link on it anyway, this phrase stood out explaining why LRMs could fire indirectly but supposedly could not lock in indirectly (kinda conflicting, no?).
Quote
Much like the Narc Missile Beacon, the primary benefit of Semi-Guided LRMs compared to the more common Artemis IV is that only the TAG equipped spotter needs direct line of sight to a target, which allows friendly launchers to fire indirectly from cover.
If regular ones can fire indirectly anyway, why would this be any different. But in the books it makes a bit more sense. LRMs can't lock indirectly. But, in the books and from the info in Sarna taken from rules and tech manuals... Semi-Guided LRMs do not require locks to hit TAG-targeted objects.
Semi-Guided LRMs are a type of ammunition and could be fired from standard LRM launchers without additional weight. They are not compatible with Artemis-enhanced launchers. The primary benefit is to fire on TAG-targeted enemies without the requirement of a lock.
Well damn. Hm. It's feeding me ideas again.
(Swear, last edit.)
The mechanics in MWO are different from tabletop and as they are right now SRMs have low skill cap. Once you become good enough other weapons are simply better. For MWO, the game as is, that is a bad thing.
Please don't place your argument outside of that. Its a bit silly. I can understand if you'd like to see a game that doesn't include pinpoint damage at all but that isn't an argument against increasing the skill cap on SRM's in a game that does revolve around pin-point damage.
Again as if being smart is important when it comes to bringing pain! Why do you think Claymore mines look like this?
Do college grads need to know that? Or do the folks who get to use 'em maybe need a reminder?
SRMs are not for smart or dumb players they are for use against... THAT GUY OVER THERE--------->
SRMs used to have a different flight path, and would actually converge several times in their path(take a close look at this video). So, you could find out the first convergence and pull to optimal range(say 70m) and could land all missiles on the exact same spot.
I wouldn't mind if they brought that pathing back, I'd rather have it rather than the current "shotgun" spread.
That video convinced me that srm are good now, no, i mean it SCARED me off a buff to srm.
Also i have a 16SRM AC20 Orion that achieve the same result as the splat cat in the video, if i get in your back youre dead. But i have to use an ac20 which gimps me in many ways. If i didnt have to use an ac20 but an ac10 or uac5 because srm are that much better then it would creat another dumb meta. Always use artemis with srm, i tested at 100meter range without ART and i swear sometimes i would get a missile to hit the fkn ground, it was like their grouping started super large sometimes.
You mean when SRMS were bugged, no I wouldn't want that. That mindset is the reason why people think SRMS are broken. Now they work like they should, CRIT HUNTERS!
Except "crit seeker" weapons are extremely lackluster in MWO - there are no through-armor criticals, you can't crit gyro, you can't crit engine, you can't crit actuators, etc.
General Taskeen, on 14 February 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:
However, SRMs could be potentially better and balanced at the same time if they rippled fired very quickly like MW2, and from there it would simply be a matter of adjusting speed and damage. So if SRMs were changed for the ability for them to hit the same spot, a ripple fire mechanic could easily balance it, since A. You are not guaranteed to be hitting the same spot, unless you are skilled B. Damage is still potentially spread/random and C. It would look damn cool and make the mechanic of firing them more unique (like firing hellfire missiles from your Mech)
My problem with this idea is that it would make SRMs work exactly like lasers, which would make them anything but "more unique" (this is also why I don't like the idea of ACs firing in bursts instead of single shell).
Also, it won't make balancing any easier - might as well simply adjust speed / damage and leave firing mechanism as-is.
Except "crit seeker" weapons are extremely lackluster in MWO - there are no through-armor criticals, you can't crit gyro, you can't crit engine, you can't crit actuators, etc.
My problem with this idea is that it would make SRMs work exactly like lasers, which would make them anything but "more unique" (this is also why I don't like the idea of ACs firing in bursts instead of single shell).
Also, it won't make balancing any easier - might as well simply adjust speed / damage and leave firing mechanism as-is.
Exactly like lasers, except with travel speed, with multiple frontloaded projectiles and using ammo.
As for ACs, they don't need to do their listed damage in a single strike, but over a span of 5 seconds. Whether you do that with a burst, or simply more less damaging projectiles with a smaller cooldown is irrelevant. As it is, the AC20 does 60 damage and a half recycle, instead of the TT equivalent of 40.
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:05 AM
Mcgral18, on 15 February 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:
Exactly like lasers, except with travel speed, with multiple frontloaded projectiles and using ammo.
Shush you, haven't you learned by now that any changes suggested to a weapon will be painted as making that weapon JUST like a laser and therefore that change is bad?
SRMs used to have a different flight path, and would actually converge several times in their path(take a close look at this video). So, you could find out the first convergence and pull to optimal range(say 70m) and could land all missiles on the exact same spot.
I wouldn't mind if they brought that pathing back, I'd rather have it rather than the current "shotgun" spread.
the cat in that video is why we can;t have nice things anymore lol, seriously though, i think the shotgun effect should be standard but artemis should deliver the old flight path like in that video
Not bad, just redudndant. We have lasers. Missiles that pepper us for explosive damage all over, and front loaded ballistics. WHich is better than Muzzle loading ballistics!
Exactly like lasers, except with travel speed, with multiple frontloaded projectiles and using ammo.
As for ACs, they don't need to do their listed damage in a single strike, but over a span of 5 seconds. Whether you do that with a burst, or simply more less damaging projectiles with a smaller cooldown is irrelevant. As it is, the AC20 does 60 damage and a half recycle, instead of the TT equivalent of 40.
Lasers are DoT - they do specified amount of damage per tick while beam is on target.
Ripple-fired SRMs would also be DoT - they would do specified amount of damage per impact while "stream" of missiles is on target.
Burst-firing ACs would also be DoT - they would do specified amount of damage per impact while "stream" of shells is on target.
The only difference I can see is that missiles and ACs would require ammo and generate less heat. The rest of the firing mechanics would be exactly the same with different visual representations.
Lasers are DoT - they do specified amount of damage per tick while beam is on target.
Ripple-fired SRMs would also be DoT - they would do specified amount of damage per impact while "stream" of missiles is on target.
Burst-firing ACs would also be DoT - they would do specified amount of damage per impact while "stream" of shells is on target.
The only difference I can see is that missiles and ACs would require ammo and generate less heat. The rest of the firing mechanics would be exactly the same with different visual representations.
A better example is the MG and Lasers. They have the exact same mechanics: hitscan and 2x range. They are pretty different in practice, since the MGs have ammo and no heat, while the lasers don't need ammo but have high heat.
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:19 AM
IceSerpent, on 15 February 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:
The only difference I can see is that missiles and ACs would require ammo and generate less heat. The rest of the firing mechanics would be exactly the same with different visual representations.
So you don't see that
1. Lasers are hitscan
2. Burst-fire Ballistics would have travel time
3. Ripple-fire Missiles would have travel time AND spread.
As Mcgral18 points out, the MG as implemented in MWO is simply a continuous-fire laser with tacked-on ballistic sound and gfx; the mechanic of it is all laser - but nobody complains the MG is "just like a laser", because you know - those differences it has is enough to make it NOT just like a laser.
I contend that in practice burst-fire ACs would be just as different from lasers as MGs are, or more. From this it follows that ripple-fire missiles would as well.
i would like to see srms be rapid fire,make it to where the more tubes the faster they leave the launcher , or better yet, if/when they introduce weapon manufacturers have a type of srm that does that but also have the regular srm shot pattern as well, that way we have more options for the same type of weapon, and lets face it, more options are always good
*edited for clarification*
Edited by Stygian Steel, 15 February 2014 - 11:38 AM.
Joseph Mallan, on 15 February 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:
Again as if being smart is important when it comes to bringing pain! Why do you think Claymore mines look like this?
Do college grads need to know that? Or do the folks who get to use 'em maybe need a reminder?
SRMs are not for smart or dumb players they are for use against... THAT GUY OVER THERE--------->
Way to insult soldiers. It also shows you know next to nothing about actual combat.
Apparently never occurred to you that someone who wasn't trained to use a Claymore might wind up using one? Or that placing one in a stressful situation might lead to mistakes and having a simple reminder could reduce said mistakes?
Oh and graduating college doesn't mean you are smart, it simply means you showed up and turned enough work to pass the classes.(FTR, yes I have a 2 yr degree and lack about a semester's worth to get a 2nd in a unrelated field, so no this isn't jealousy or some such.)
A better example is the MG and Lasers. They have the exact same mechanics: hitscan and 2x range. They are pretty different in practice, since the MGs have ammo and no heat, while the lasers don't need ammo but have high heat.
MGs have cone of fire, they don't have exact same mechanics as lasers.
stjobe, on 15 February 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:
So you don't see that
1. Lasers are hitscan
2. Burst-fire Ballistics would have travel time
3. Ripple-fire Missiles would have travel time AND spread.
Ripple fire missiles won't have any spread unless they get cone of fire mechanic like MGs. So, you will end up with a whole bunch of DoT weapons that have projectile travel time ranging from 0 (lasers) to whatever travel time SRMs will have for a given distance.
The real question is what do you expect to gain from all this. So far PGI has been unable to balance regular lasers vs. pulse lasers (and that's just 2 weapon types), what makes you think that they will have better luck with more weapons thrown into the DoT bucket?
4
Dymlos2003, on 14 February 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:
It'd be nice to have an update on where things stand. And with pulse lasers too while we're at it?
