138 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

I'll call them robots, Gundams, or Veritechs if I want to.

And youll be wrong every time.

But it you want to look like a moron, keep doing so. Just dont try to win arguments while youre doing it you defeat yourself lol

[Joseph Mallan]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 November 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

And youll be wrong every time.

But it you want to look like a moron, keep doing so. Just dont try to win arguments while youre doing it you defeat yourself lol

I don't know Buddah. Who sounds dumber, the person saying what he wants, or the grammar cop?

Quote

Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.
Sun Tzu

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 November 2014 - 06:32 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 November 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

And youll be wrong every time.

But it you want to look like a moron, keep doing so. Just dont try to win arguments while youre doing it you defeat yourself lol

It's because people always get bent out of shape when I do it that I keep doing it.

Is it childish? Yep!

Edited by QuantumButler, 08 November 2014 - 06:30 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

I don't know Buddah. Who sounds dumber, the person saying what he wants, or the grammar cop?

The one using the wrong term

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

It's because people always get bent out of shape when I do it that I keep doing it.

Is it childish? Yep!

lol nice logic

But its even funnier when youre arguing with someone and trying to use logic to win the argument... you fail on principle XD

[Joseph Mallan]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 November 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

The one using the wrong term

I think its the one unable to deduce the meaning of the over all message due to one word. inflexibility of thought is dumb.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

I think its the one unable to deduce the meaning of the over all message due to one word. inflexibility of thought is dumb.

As is being ignorant and using the wrong word to be childish

[Joseph Mallan]

Examples of CHILDISH

She has a childish face.(not negative meaning)
a letter written in childish scrawl
He opened the gifts with childish delight.(not negative meaning)
We're tired of their childish games.
I find his humor very childish.

I'm 48 years old, sometimes its fun to be childish. I will never grow up if I can help it.

[xengk]

Glythe, on 07 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

This game makes almost zero sense when you look at SRM and LRM launcher options. I don't know when it happened but sometime ago there was a nerf to the larger launchers of both weapons.

It makes no sense that 4x LRM 5 are better than 1x LRM 20. Russ and the team seem dumbfounded by what is going on here but it's quite simple. Somewhere along the line the LRM 20 got nerfed so it mostly doesn't seek center torso, but LRM 5-10s still do so people use those almost exclusively.

You really can't have the smaller version of a weapon dealing more damage than its heavier big brother. Small lasers don't usually do more damage than medium lasers. The smaller variant has a drawback for weighing less..... namely a huge range penalty.

Why then do small clusters of LRMs aim almost exclusively for the torso when large LRM clusters scatter everywhere? That's foolish from a balance perspective and leads to people gaming the system. This is why you see people chain firing LRM 5s because it gives a long range chest seeking weapon.

But the broken nature of this system does not stop with LRMs. We also have SRMs such as the SRM 4 that are deadlier than the SRM6 due to the difference in pinpoint damage. In fact 3x SRM 6 with artemis does less concentrated damage than 4x SRM 4 to a single component.

In both cases the heavier weapon that costs more critical slots and tonnage does less damage to the target than the "weaker" variants. That just isn't right.

LRM/SRM spread should be universal regardless of the number of tubes fired. Please change this for balance reasons.

The last time the dev try to give all LRM the same spread, we got the spiral flight pattern.
Missile would swoop into and out in a X pattern.
LRM5 and LRM20 both have the same pattern.


But it has the unfortunate effect of drilling 60 missiles onto the target's CT, you either go full lurm or go home, So it got removed.

There was some talk about applying the bone targeting system that SSRM gets onto LRM, breaking up missiles into group of 5s and have them target one random component of the mech, but the idea went no where.

[Alek Ituin]

Glythe, on 08 November 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:

Here's the problem. One gun for the most part is all you need on an aircraft. Mounting lots of guns is a waste of weight and space and makes your craft less aerodynamic. You're taking away space from other weapon systems.

Multiple vs single missiles on a mech is more or less the same deal. Something this game doesn't model is that each launcher needs to be supplied with ammunition. This would kill your internal space with 4 separate launchers. You need 4x all the little things that make the launcher work.

But all this is irrelevant. There is no reason for the LRM 5 to do more or as much damage as a single LRM 20 to the chest area of a mech.

No you wouldn't. One feed system built to supply 20 missiles at once could supply 4x LRM-5's as if they were one LRM-20. Same goes for ammunition feeds on aircraft with 6 guns vs one gun. You don't need that much more space as it happens, you just need to be smart about how you position each weapon and how the feed belts are placed.

As for multiple cannons, it depends on what you're doing. Multiple cannons has the advantage of firing more shells, increasing the hit ratio, but requiring more weight. A single cannon is lighter, but decreases hit ratio significantly on the fact that it's firing less shells. Plus, if you're attacking armored targets, more shells = more spalling, so a high number of large caliber cannons is better than a single large caliber cannon. If you're attacking bombers with defensive turrets, more cannons = less required ToT for a kill, which is better than a single cannon.

The only possible reason you'd want one cannon is if you absolutely need that last 200-250kg of weight, which is absolutely inconsequential to aircraft performance as it so happens. And the cannon mount for a single rotary cannon is MUCH less aerodynamic that the mounts for 6 single-barrel revolver cannons. So really, there's no reason to not bring 6 revolver cannons over anything else.

Seriously Glythe, it's like you don't have any form of imagination, any semblance of creativity, or any ounce of common sense.

[Glythe]

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

No you wouldn't. One feed system built to supply 20 missiles at once could supply 4x LRM-5's as if they were one LRM-20. Same goes for ammunition feeds on aircraft with 6 guns vs one gun. You don't need that much more space as it happens, you just need to be smart about how you position each weapon and how the feed belts are placed.

One feed system could supply 20 missiles in one place or into 4 different places. Having 1 loading system for ammo is more efficient than wasting space and having multiple. But it doesn't matter because the game doesn't care..... in this game and WoT the only thing that matters is the outer hull and not the internal workings.

I would like to share something with you about the T-54 (taken from wikipedia).

Small size is achieved at the expense of interior space and crew comforts, which is a common trait of most Soviet tanks. This causes practical difficulties, as it constrains the physical movements of the crew and slows operation of controls and equipment. Israelis who crewed T-54/55s captured during the 1967 and 1973 wars constantly complained about this, and it remains a problem that cannot be remedied by any upgrades. Height limits were set for any recruit joining the tank crews in the Soviet Army, hence the low average height of Soviet tanks. This is believed to completely solve the low silhouette issue, whereas other armies may not include crew member height limits as standards. The low turret profile of the tanks prevents them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° (the average for Western tanks is 10°), which limits the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope.

You might be thinking well we could find a way to cram it all in there. You can.... and then you have a T-54. It doesn't really do everything a tank needs to do well. If you're taller than 5'6 you really don't want to ever be in that tank. It looks like a great tank on paper but it has a lot of limitations as a result of its design.

I think you've decided that because it could be done then it is a viable option. But really seriously.... why would you? Where is the quad barrel howitzer? There is no need for it because you can fire 5 shells from 1 gun and have them all hit a distant target at the same time.

Looking at aircraft from the 40's we had a lot of planes that used multiple barrels. Looking at successful planes from the 50s-80s the average was 1-2 barrels. Sure yes some of them used 4....... but unless that secret Mig 28 was carrying 6 barrels I think that design element died out.

Alek Ituin, on 08 November 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Seriously Glythe

Somewhere you decided just to be a jerk. Well I'm not going to waste everyone's time talking to you. If you want to have an argument, send me a private message. Don't worry I will totally delete it before reading it (wait did I say that backwards).

But by all means please stay if you can contribute to the LRM/SRM conversation..... otherwise please leave.

[Glythe]

xengk, on 08 November 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

But it has the unfortunate effect of drilling 60 missiles onto the target's CT, you either go full lurm or go home, So it got removed.

There was some talk about applying the bone targeting system that SSRM gets onto LRM, breaking up missiles into group of 5s and have them target one random component of the mech, but the idea went no where.

Yes... lets base.

Man that video brings me back..... to a time when this game was fun.I miss the good thermal imaging that felt futursistic and probably just needed a slight range nerf so you can't snipe with it at 1000m. I miss the old clicking noise when a target appeared/disappeared. I miss the old glow when you shot the crap out of an enemy mech. I miss the LRMs that actually were a threat and killed things with just 1 person using them.

And see I feel that is a real problem with LRMs. You can kill someone with laser fire and ballistics on your own but forget it with LRMs.


But I like this video (selected at random). Look at the time to kill on the Atlas. Is this any different from Dakka, double gauss and laser vomit (notice the Atlas never torso twists)? It required tag+Artemis to work that way and you always ran the risk that someone got too close and you were defenseless.

http://www.youtube.c...BAYJYW8qYQ#t=76



LOL.... I had no idea I was actually in that video. Small world.

Edited by Glythe, 08 November 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[xengk]

Glythe, on 08 November 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Yes... lets base.

Man that video brings me back..... to a time when this game was fun.I miss the good thermal imaging that felt futursistic and probably just needed a slight range nerf so you can't snipe with it at 1000m. I miss the old clicking noise when a target appeared/disappeared. I miss the LRMs that actually were a threat and killed things with just 1 person using them.

And see I feel that is a real problem with LRMs. You can kill someone with laser fire and ballistics on your own but forget it with LRMs.


But I like this video (selected at random). Look at the time to kill on the Atlas. Is this any different from Dakka, double gauss and laser vomit (notice the Atlas never torso twists)? It required tag+Artemis to work that way and you always ran the risk that someone got too close and you were defenseless.

http://www.youtube.c...BAYJYW8qYQ#t=76

LOL.... I had no idea I was actually in that video. Small world.

I ran my 8R quite abit during the spiral LRM, I still feel dirty watching video about it til this day.

LRM have been designated by the dev as support weapon, the only weapon that you can use without LOS, a locked target is potentially engage with 12 LRM bearing mechs. So it need to have some drawback; ECM, minimum range, low damage(2dmg/1t); I understand their reasoning and can agree with it, every time one of the drawback got tinkered with we face another Lurmgeddon.

But I would like to see SSRM locking on LRM, have 5s missile in tight grouping that hit different component.
LRM20 will have 4 groups of 5s hitting different part of a mech instead of having close to half the salvo slamming the ground. My LRM15/20 are having trouble breaking 35% accuracy.
Speeding up missile speed to at least 200m/s will make them viable beyond 500m.

Unless they are saving it for Streak LRM.

[RalphVargr]

I want ONE big, Russian-style, aircraft carrier killing missile per hardpoint. Cruises, and it homes on jam.

Then AMS becomes utterly vital. And, so do scouts hunting the *real* missile boats.

[Joseph Mallan]

RalphVargr, on 08 November 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

I want ONE big, Russian-style, aircraft carrier killing missile per hardpoint. Cruises, and it homes on jam.

Then AMS becomes utterly vital. And, so do scouts hunting the *real* missile boats.

LOL and Only an Atlas could carry one! Just one!

[xengk]

RalphVargr, on 08 November 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

I want ONE big, Russian-style, aircraft carrier killing missile per hardpoint. Cruises, and it homes on jam.

Then AMS becomes utterly vital. And, so do scouts hunting the *real* missile boats.

Arrow IV Homing Missile!

[ShadowWolf Kell]

xengk, on 08 November 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Arrow IV Homing Missile!

And Clan Wolf's Naga carries 2!

Arrow would be interesting, but so would Swarm and Thunder/FASCAM LRMs. Oh that would be fun for wracking up light kills on urban maps. Lights would completely give up on rushing ahead out of fear their legs would get blown off with each step lol.

Edited by ShadowWolf Kell, 08 November 2014 - 11:27 AM.

[Satan n stuff]

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

I love it when people use LRM5s, because a single AMS can take out huge chunks of each LRM salvo, since it works by shooting down 2 or 3 missiles PER SALVO FIRED, IE: 40-50% of each LRM 5 cloud, but this means bigger launchers can punch through AMS with ease since taking 2 missiles out of a single 20 cloud isn't going help a whole lot.

and if you have dual [or triple!] AMS people with 5s might as well not even bother.

QuantumButler, on 08 November 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure the ams kills 2 missiles per launcher irrespective of if you chainfire or group fire them.

Last time I paid attention to it AMS would concentrate on whichever group of missiles gets into range first until they're destroyed.

Unless something changed that I'm not aware of the first wave would lose at least 7 or so missiles, depending on modules it might lose 10 or more. Every wave after that would lose only a few ( about 3-4 ) missiles due to the missiles being half a second from impact already when they are targeted.

[Zerberus]

RalphVargr, on 08 November 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

I want ONE big, Russian-style, aircraft carrier killing missile per hardpoint. Cruises, and it homes on jam.

Then AMS becomes utterly vital. And, so do scouts hunting the *real* missile boats.

xengk, on 08 November 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Arrow IV Homing Missile!

Are you really sure you want me running around with two of those things (in a Naga)? Some cans are best left unopened, my friends

Edited by Zerberus, 08 November 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[Fut]

Glythe, on 07 November 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

The problem is that people aren't firing a single LRM 5...... they are using those as a LRM 100 because one LRM 5 does about as much damage to a concentrated area as the LRM 20.

Can somebody post the Smurfy link to this Mech please?

[Glythe]

If you doubt there is a difference in SRM patterns then try loading up your Atlas S with 3x srm6 with artemis and again with 4x srm4 against the same targets.

The SRM 6 just isn't registering all the hits and the pattern is wide. But the SRM 4 works better.... wtf?