37 replies to this topic

[Silversynch]

What I'm talking about is how LRMs (currently) rise up to a large height, then fall so missiles will go over objects without taking your cursor off the mech.
Considering indirect fire is dishonorable to the Clans, it would be obvious that they would not have this capacity, as they would never use it.
What this would do is limit the Clan mechs to direct fire, face to face combat, meaning all lurmboats need LOS to the target or else their missiles fly into a wall, a complete change in tactics.
You should also buff the damage if you do this, or else there is no appropriate trade-off.

Edited by Silversynch, 07 January 2015 - 04:47 PM.

[Robomomo2000]

Have you tried playing a whole match in a LURM boat using LOS only? It can take a while to get the hang of and some maps right now would ruin those guys if they had to do this. I'm not defending the LURMers as much as trying to tell you to test it before suggesting a game changer like this, so please don't start raging against me.

Edit: just realized this is about clan missiles; if you guys want to give yourselves that much of a disadvantage I'm fine with that

Edited by Robomomo2000, 07 January 2015 - 07:26 PM.

[pvtjamesr]

I'll tell you what, completely remove the minimum range aspect of Clan lrm's so they do full damage under 180m and then they can have their indirect fire capabilities removed.

[Silversynch]

pvtjamesr, on 07 January 2015 - 07:49 PM, said:

I'll tell you what, completely remove the minimum range aspect of Clan lrm's so they do full damage under 180m and then they can have their indirect fire capabilities removed.

So just return them to TT specifications, size, tonnage, damage scale?
That's a much better idea than just damage.
And let's face it, PGI needs to make less constrictive maps. We're on Cryengine 3, for Kerensky's sake! I want wide open fields where assaults dance and lights kite! I...
...'m pretty much asking for Living Legends- PGI Edition by this point.

Edited by Silversynch, 07 January 2015 - 08:58 PM.

[Locusthorde300]

Wouldn't they basically just turn into extended range SSRMs at that point?

[Navid A1]

Silversynch, on 07 January 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

So just return them to TT specifications, size, tonnage, damage scale?
That's a much better idea than just damage.
And let's face it, PGI needs to make less constrictive maps. We're on Cryengine 3, for Kerensky's sake! I want wide open fields where assaults dance and lights kite! I...
...'m pretty much asking for Living Legends- PGI Edition by this point.

You... Ask...for too much...


I think PGI is still learning their way with cryengine. Given the fact that they want the game to also run on old PCs... the chances of seeing those great great things are close to zero.

[Demon Horde]

honestly if you played MW 3 and MW4 all LRM's were direct line of sight only. there was no arch up that created "missle rain" . Can't remember how the two MW2 games did them though it's been too long since I played those. I would vote yes on this , but I honestly think IS LRMs should work the same. that is I think there should be no arching on those either.

[Karl Streiger]

you could fire indirect in MW 2 and MW 3 - I'm pretty sure it was possible in MW4 - and in MWLL it was also possible - but need more smart spotter - that really did spot - instead of having only a LOS

in MW2 / 3 you had radar contact - there was even the possibility to kill a Dire Wolf with a single salvo of LRM 15 - using indirect tractory and the missiles moving for the center.

Consider all games - the missiles were all the time very power full - you could even link the targeting computer in MW3 with missiles - causing perfect head shots - not that it was necessary - because of the light clan missiles 80 LRMs obliterate most Mechs.

On the other hand even SRMs and SSRMs were indirect capable in MW3 - and afaik as well in the short living Assault Tech - MW2

I don't mind that clans sacrifice there non existing honour and violating zell and even using indirect fire - its the game how its meant to play. But i really would like to see - indirect fire that needs some more brain

Edited by Karl Streiger, 08 January 2015 - 03:58 AM.

[Navid A1]

Demon Horde, on 08 January 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

honestly if you played MW 3 and MW4 all LRM's were direct line of sight only. there was no arch up that created "missle rain" . Can't remember how the two MW2 games did them though it's been too long since I played those. I would vote yes on this , but I honestly think IS LRMs should work the same. that is I think there should be no arching on those either.

I remember that in MW3 you could get a lock and and fire in the sky to get a degree of indirect fire capability. Or fire to the sides to lob the missiles around a corner. In MWO the launchers just fire into a defined trajectory independent from your reticle position.

[Bregor Edain]

Clans used LRMs if they could target their enemies and this include indirect fire if tactically appropriate. Also the act that might be in the greater interest/honor of his unit, caste or Clan as a whole and that is above personal honor. I should think this is enough reason to not having to change flight mechanics of C-LRM because the way it currently works, works within the lore.

[pvtjamesr]

Another option is to add C3 networks. Not only would that make lance configurations important, it'll make tag and NARC vital to a lrm boat.

LINK if you don't know what i'm talking about.

[Bellum Dominum]

pvtjamesr, on 08 January 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Another option is to add C3 networks. Not only would that make lance configurations important, it'll make tag and NARC vital to a lrm boat.

LINK if you don't know what i'm talking about.

I run an lrm boat from time to time and I'd love to see C3 networks put into the game. I'd also love to see ECM work as it does on table top. Only providing electronic counter measures for the mech it's actually on and not some 'bubble of protection'. I'd also love to see the active probes work like they are supposed to. Not a bubble of counter ecm for all the mechs on a team but only for the mech the probe is on.

Do all that and you will really see some butthurt in the game however so I understand why it is as it is now.

Fact is LRM's are very easy to deal with/negate and there are many threads on these forums about it. Lurk moa.

[Aiden Skye]

+1 to C3 networks. Would add a lot more depth to LRM's. My spotter raven will then truly have a role.

[Mark of Caine]

W A R K H A N, on 08 January 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

+1 to C3 networks. Would add a lot more depth to LRM's. My spotter raven will then truly have a role.

As much as I love the scout concept of role warfare, the fact of the matter is that spotting and scouting in this game is very difficult to pull off at the best of times. The maps are all counter-intuitive to the scout role. In the public queue, the vast majority of maps are all designed for brawling or sniping. And in CW, forget it. The maps were never designed for scouts in mind.

Trust me, nothing would please me more than to be able to dust off my beloved Raven 3L and actually do the job it was meant to do.

[Kain Demos]

Navid A1, on 08 January 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

You... Ask...for too much...


I think PGI is still learning their way with cryengine. Given the fact that they want the game to also run on old PCs... the chances of seeing those great great things are close to zero.

If that's what they're trying to do they are failing HARD.

Even people with 4k dollar computers get performance issues in this game.

[Aiden Skye]

Caine2112, on 08 January 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

As much as I love the scout concept of role warfare, the fact of the matter is that spotting and scouting in this game is very difficult to pull off at the best of times. The maps are all counter-intuitive to the scout role. In the public queue, the vast majority of maps are all designed for brawling or sniping. And in CW, forget it. The maps were never designed for scouts in mind.

Trust me, nothing would please me more than to be able to dust off my beloved Raven 3L and actually do the job it was meant to do.

I'd like to see more maps the size of Alpine and Tormaline. We have too many arena / close combat style maps. And brawlers are deadlier than ever. Maps that promote balanced builds instead of all brawl / all snipe, as well as created a necessity for roles like scouting, will go a long way to bringing true balance to MWO.

[Jeon Ji Yoon]

Silversynch, on 07 January 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

Considering indirect fire is dishonorable to the Clans

Since teamwork is integral to this game the honor system of this alternate universe must have changed.

[Burktross]

kek?

[JadeTimberwolf]

Silversynch, on 07 January 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

Considering indirect fire is dishonorable to the Clans, it would be obvious that they would not have this capacity, as they would never use it.

Huh? I have been playing Clans since I first started playing TTBT and I have deeply read the lore within the sourcebooks and no were do I remember this being mentioned ever. Interfering with duels, using stealth units (ECMs are not stealth), using land mines, those are dishonorable but indirect fire is a standard part of warfare

[Banditman]

In MW2 LRM's and SSRM's had a lot of subtlety to them. You had to lock them just like now, but your lock didn't instantly disappear when you removed your reticle from the target, which allowed you to do some really interesting things in looping missiles around and over obstacles.

I don't think that gameplay would be fun here, but it was then.