5 replies to this topic

[Sader325]

Do they do exponentially less damage the closer you get to 0m of distance. (From 180)

Or do they do X amount of reduce damage under 180m.

I've never bothered to ask because I always just made the assumption that they do less damage the closer you are to 0.

Meaning: 100% damage @ 180, 50% damage @ 90, 0% damage @ 0

[Zerberus]

My understanding and what it feels like is exponentially less....at 170m the difference is negligible to 180+, but at 100 it´s already very noticable, and under about 80m they´re basically completely worthless no matter how many you´re packing.

Edited by Zerberus, 13 June 2016 - 11:22 AM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

When they came out the damage drop off being split into two sections. The drop off was linear is both areas.

For example the damage is 0% at 0 meters and climbs to 60% at 60 meters. Then climbs from 60% to 100% as the range moves from 60 to 180.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the exact numbers. Might have to dig around in the patch notes.

[Escef]

Should be around 50% damage at 100 meters. There's a non-linear function that controls the damage scaling, such that it ramps up quickly between 100 and 180, and ramps down quickly between 100 and 0.

[Juodas Varnas]

It shouldn't scale at all.
Should do full damage always (Clan Lurms are not supposed to have minimum range).

Sh*t, i'd argue that IS LRMs should do full damage at minimum range too (just unable to lock-on, so you'd have to dumb-fire them at short range).

[wanderer]

Honestly, that's actually an interesting idea (lose lockon inside 180m, dumbfire only). Heck, I'd even take simply firing on a wider spread mode for 179-0m, the same way we have a different firing arc for 0-299m vs. 300m+ now.