94 replies to this topic

[Cowboyboots]

Either change the name to Long Range Mortars or change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave. There is no reason steep cover should not be effective against missiles, besides pandering to bad players. This would solve many of the complaints against LRMs without resorting to altering their damage.

[El Bandito]

Some reduction in max angle is fine by me, but I want flatter trajectory on direct-fire IS LRMs in return.

It takes too long for the LRMs to reach that mech not 400 meters away in the open.

Edited by El Bandito, 17 November 2014 - 11:05 PM.

[Kilo 40]

Cowboyboots, on 17 November 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

or change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave

So, more like this?



but seriously, this isn't a game that takes place in 1944. Missiles aren't giant bottle rockets that just go forward.

*********************************************************************
Oh wait, I missed this part of your comment

Quote

besides pandering to bad players.

You're the one whining bub. look in a mirror.

[Lily from animove]

they are lrms and and not srms, they can home into a target. It's fine as it is. 3149 and our missiles should not be able to fly over a hill? WOW, seriously.

[Alek Ituin]

Kilo 40, on 17 November 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

but seriously, this isn't a game that takes place in 1944. Missiles aren't giant bottle rockets that just go forward.

That's exactly how every missile works, always. They're giant "bottle rockets" with guidance packages and warheads. Some take ballistic trajectories, others go straight in, some do other interesting things. But they all go forward by design.

Also, there were a huge number of guided weapons by 1944-45, mainly in German service. America was doing some very interesting things with self-guided infrared "cruise missiles", but they would get confused by more than one object in their FoV... Sometimes it'd track the shoreline like a target, or a stray wave that caught its attention. Not every 1944-45 missile design were "bottle rockets that just go forward".

[Lily from animove]

Alek Ituin, on 18 November 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

That's exactly how every missile works, always. They're giant "bottle rockets" with guidance packages and warheads. Some take ballistic trajectories, others go straight in, some do other interesting things. But they all go forward by design.

Also, there were a huge number of guided weapons by 1944-45, mainly in German service. America was doing some very interesting things with self-guided infrared "cruise missiles", but they would get confused by more than one object in their FoV... Sometimes it'd track the shoreline like a target, or a stray wave that caught its attention. Not every 1944-45 missile design were "bottle rockets that just go forward".

lrms go forward too, and no missiles are not "bottle rockets" a missile is not always a rocket, while a rocket is always a missile.

[Alek Ituin]

Lily from animove, on 18 November 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:

lrms go forward too, and no missiles are not "bottle rockets" a missile is not always a rocket, while a rocket is always a missile.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish with this comment...

[Roadbuster]

Kilo 40, on 17 November 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:

but seriously, this isn't a game that takes place in 1944. Missiles aren't giant bottle rockets that just go forward.

Lily from animove, on 18 November 2014 - 12:16 AM, said:

they are lrms and and not srms, they can home into a target. It's fine as it is. 3149 and our missiles should not be able to fly over a hill? WOW, seriously.

If missiles would be more realistic there would be no need for battlemechs, because they are toys compared to the weapons available in 2014.
MWO is a game.
And having good balance in a game is more important than being realistic.

I'd also welcome a slight reduction of the dive angle of LRMs.

[SerratedBlaze]

The angle of departure and last second dive could be reduced. Height in general is too high.

I find that missiles hit low wide hills and hop over buildings.

[Kilo 40]

Alek Ituin, on 18 November 2014 - 12:49 AM, said:

But they all go forward by design.

is this a troll post or something?

[Kilo 40]

Roadbuster, on 18 November 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

If missiles would be more realistic there would be no need for battlemechs, because they are toys compared to the weapons available in 2014.
MWO is a game.
And having good balance in a game is more important than being realistic.

I'd also welcome a slight reduction of the dive angle of LRMs.

the OP is the one who was asking for realism.

[SweetJackal]

Cowboyboots, on 17 November 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Either change the name to Long Range Mortars or change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave. There is no reason steep cover should not be effective against missiles, besides pandering to bad players. This would solve many of the complaints against LRMs without resorting to altering their damage.

This is amusing as I can name a lot of steep cover on any map that will reliably stop LRMs dead in their tracks. This is because I often make use of them when picking my movement paths and positioning. Even when using shallow cover like the lip of the crater in Caustic you can avoid whole volleys of LRM fire by cutting to the left or the right as you back up and break LoS.

Seriously, I laugh when I get the Incoming Missile warning as that means that not only has someone brought significant tonnage in weapons and ammo that will outright lose in a direct firefight and not only is that weapon system really not a threat to me as I don't put myself into the wide open areas that it denies for extended periods of time and not only is it giving away the positioning of the LRM boat that is likely in the back line and maybe isolated from teammates BUT it is also directly wasting ammo tonnage firing high explosive tracking missiles INTO ROCKS.

Let them LRM till they blot out the sun, I will continue to sip fine wine without spilling a drop as my ride remains as smooth as ever. Now, the few heavyweights that decide to stick back and act as protection for the LRM boats? Those I will be scared of. They are the ones that will hold my attention and I will be concerned about.

[Lily from animove]

Alek Ituin, on 18 November 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish with this comment...

try to figure it out.

[Willard Phule]

Cowboyboots, on 17 November 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Either change the name to Long Range Mortars or change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave. There is no reason steep cover should not be effective against missiles, besides pandering to bad players. This would solve many of the complaints against LRMs without resorting to altering their damage.

Pardon my snarkiness, but I'm curious as to which military you served in as an Artilleryman to come up with that conclusion.

I only know how the US Army MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) operates. They tend to fly on an arcing trajectory, to guarantee the fuse on the nose of the missle will actually impact what they're aiming at.

I only ask because I'm curious as to whether other militaries have come up with something different.

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

Yeah lrms have been problematic for a while. Adjusting their flight path would be the best way to have an lrm build still be scary but not be able to rain down death even when you are behind cover. I am a very experienced player and if i toss 50-60 lrms on a mech I can maintain around a 600-1000 avg damage per match whereas with direct fire weapons of any sort (srms are my favorite weapons in game) I only average 400-700 per match. Obviously the lrms are a tad easy to use.

[Alek Ituin]

Kilo 40, on 18 November 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

is this a troll post or something?

No, it's me pointing out what an idiotic statement you made about rocket projectiles.

Lily from animove, on 18 November 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

try to figure it out.

Or I wont because it's just as stupid as Kilo 40's comment. Also, yes, all missiles are rockets. That's kind of they're designed and built, ya know? Anything thing that produces thrust entirely from internal fuel stores is a rocket, which is how conventional missiles work.

[Kilo 40]

Alek Ituin, on 18 November 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

No, it's me pointing out what an idiotic statement you made about rocket projectiles.

Idiotic huh?

so missiles only go forward and don't change directions or altitude?

well ok then.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Cowboyboots, on 17 November 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

Either change the name to Long Range Mortars or change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave. There is no reason steep cover should not be effective against missiles, besides pandering to bad players. This would solve many of the complaints against LRMs without resorting to altering their damage.

Im guessing youre new

Or youd know they have changed the angle of attack a few times already,

An remember - the LRM is SUPPOSED A support weapon, not primary

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Many posts have been directed to this topic.

But, just to repeat the LRM feature of having 'direct sight' Artimis equipped systems.
- If the LRM launcher's target is in direct sight and the launcher has Artimis, the missiles should not have to keep there high arc 'normal' trajectory. (that's what this systems is designed to do, aid guidance.)

For all other 'shoots' the normal arc, but line of sight with Artimis, flatter arc.
(effectively giving the shooter a shorter time to target for the missiles.)

9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 18 November 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Artgathan]

Cowboyboots, on 17 November 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

change the angle of attack to vaguely resemble how missiles should behave.

Check out "Javelin Missile Top Attack" - I think your conception of how missiles "must" behave is flawed.