25 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

CrushLibs, on 31 May 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

Art4 = Artemis

FTFU
We Have Artillery which is called Arty.

[Astrocanis]

PS WrathOfDeadguy, on 31 May 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

Missile accuracy goes to **** when firing on targets out of LOS because the primary guidance system is the 'Mech's targeting computer, not the missile's onboard electronics. The 'Mech that fired the missiles sends updates on the target's position and velocity and tells the missiles what course corrections they need to make to hit the target. We know this is true because the missiles lose their locks and fly to the target's last known position as soon as the firing 'Mech no longer has a lock.

Artemis IV Fire Control System improves the quality of the targeting data being relayed between the firing unit and the missiles- nothing more, nothing less. This results in better accuracy when the firing unit has LOS to the target. Missiles fired without LOS should receive no benefit.

The trouble is that when you're relying on a spotter for locks, your missiles are getting their data second-hand. The spotter relays data to you, you get a lock, you fire your missiles. Okay... but your missiles are not communicating with the spotter, they're communicating with you. Your targeting computer has become the middleman, and the quality of the targeting information it passes on to the missiles is limited by the quality of the data coming in from the spotter and the communications equipment relaying information between the two 'Mechs (which does not benefit from Artemis IV). Which means that your Artemis is doing- or should be doing- a whole lot of nothing when you use LRMs in indirect fire mode.

Compounding this is the way MWO handles indirect fire, which in lore would be a matter of the spotter calling a target's position and velocity over the radio- the firing 'Mech would not have a target lock at all. What we see in MWO is something that should only be possible with C3 master/slave hardware (which is entirely different from the command console), which most 'Mechs simply don't have. In fact, as of right this minute, there isn't a single 'Mech in MWO that has C3. The only lore-friendly means of acquiring non-LOS target locks without C3 are TAG and NARC.

Basically, don't ask for Artemis to improve your indirect fire, because indirect fire should be less accurate than it is at present and require a lot more effort in order to score any hits at all. That's not what Artemis IV does.

Thereby rendering LRMs even more useless than they currently are. How about, "In order for the laser to do ANY damage, it must maintain targeting on the same component for the entire beam duration?"

That would pretty much render lasers completely useless. Lore be damned.

[Almond Brown]

Astrocanis, on 01 June 2015 - 08:56 AM, said:

Thereby rendering LRMs even more useless than they currently are. How about, "In order for the laser to do ANY damage, it must maintain targeting on the same component for the entire beam duration?"

That would pretty much render lasers completely useless. Lore be damned.

LOL! According to some on here, that happens all the time already. The reason provided is HSR.

But just imagine, if Lasers did NO damage if the complete Lasers Full burn time was not to just one section (aka Rolled Damaged does not count)? LOL!

OMG! Even the Wub Wub would suffer. The Sky? It would indeed Fall.

Edited by Almond Brown, 01 June 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

The only reason LRMs are useless is because ECM is way too powerful. Change the ECM to user-only jamming, which would revive LRMs as a viable weapon system. They don't need any buffs; they're already the only weapon system capable of indirect fire in this game, and are more than capable of engaging and destroying or crippling any target not covered by ECM or lots of AMS. The high TTK compared to other weapon systems is simply the tradeoff you accept for being able to attack 'Mechs from the cozy safety of the backfield under cover of terrain.

And no, ECM isn't harder to fix. The only thing that PGI would need to do is reduce its effective radius to 10m or so, to limit its area of effect to the 'Mech it's mounted on. Problem solved.

[Pjwned]

I would rather see Artemis IV improved further than take away its line of sight requirement.

[Roadkill]

Pjwned, on 01 June 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

I would rather see Artemis IV improved further than take away its line of sight requirement.

Agreed. Double its effect and it might be worth taking.