220 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

ok ive set the Initial Spread to 6 instead of 7, now indirect NARC and TAG Benefit from the rework,
with that change the Concept is mostly just a Buff to LOS LRMs, which i feel could make them more Useful,

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

Then that was changed since I've been gone. Thank you for the information.

no worries,

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

ok ive set the Initial Spread to 6 instead of 7, now indirect NARC and TAG Benefit from the rework,
with that change the Concept is mostly just a Buff to LOS LRMs, which i feel could make them more Useful,

Again why are you turning an indirect fired weapon into a direct fired one? Did you read my suggestions to make LRMs be better based upon this difference?

[Tincan Nightmare]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

If you noticed I went with the write up on how they fired which I got wrong in the beginning. I dropped the direct fire mode because it doesn't exist.

And I posted up the write up of the weapon itself. Let me get you that link again.

http://www.sarna.net...g_Range_Missile

"Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve their superior range by firing at a ballistic launch angle"

Ballistic launch angle is between 20-90 degrees for artillery and for missiles like the cruise missile they launch usually at 90 degrees then arc to their targets. It is not a straight trajectory like a bullet or a laser. My argument evolved with the facts did yours?

Considering my argument has been the definition of indirect fire= engaging without line of sight, and direct fire= engaging with line of sight, I don't see what needed to evolve. In TT engaging a target 'indirectly' means firing on it without a line of sight, it doesn't matter if the round does backflips, corkscrews, or turns in 6 circles before hitting the target. If your target was in line of sight, you were engaging it directly. The rules I quoted even state this, stating that if a mech firing LRM's has LOS with a target, it cannot make and 'indirect' attack, but must instead engage the target in line of sight. Your argument only 'evolved' when I posted the actual rules about the game mechanic, and now is based solely on 'omg it fires in a ballistic arc, it's an indirect weapon'. Which is ironic, since the OP based his thread on whether your are shooting at the target with or without LOS, and you responded in kind. The ballistic arc of IS LRM's just makes it harder to hit targets up close (basically fluff to explain their minimum range) but it is still possible (unlike in MWO where no damage occurs) meaning the arc can't be that steep.

If you want LRM's to stay as they are, simply say so, don't try to change the very definition of indirect/direct half way through the thread.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Considering my argument has been the definition of indirect fire= engaging without line of sight, and direct fire= engaging with line of sight, I don't see what needed to evolve. In TT engaging a target 'indirectly' means firing on it without a line of sight, it doesn't matter if the round does backflips, corkscrews, or turns in 6 circles before hitting the target. If your target was in line of sight, you were engaging it directly. The rules I quoted even state this, stating that if a mech firing LRM's has LOS with a target, it cannot make and 'indirect' attack, but must instead engage the target in line of sight. Your argument only 'evolved' when I posted the actual rules about the game mechanic, and now is based solely on 'omg it fires in a ballistic arc, it's an indirect weapon'. Which is ironic, since the OP based his thread on whether your are shooting at the target with or without LOS, and you responded in kind. The ballistic arc of IS LRM's just makes it harder to hit targets up close (basically fluff to explain their minimum range) but it is still possible (unlike in MWO where no damage occurs) meaning the arc can't be that steep.

If you want LRM's to stay as they are, simply say so, don't try to change the very definition of indirect/direct half way through the thread.

I didn't change the definition. FASA did and they only differentiated firing without LOS through the use of a rule named Indirect Fire. It still doesn't alter the text of the weapon as written by FASA and kept by Catalyst Games. So we're at an impasse then which is fine by me.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Again why are you turning an indirect fired weapon into a direct fired one? Did you read my suggestions to make LRMs be better based upon this difference?

because LRMs arnt just indirect fired weapons, they are weapons that Can fire indirectly,
even in TT they were never indirect Only weapons, this is why im suggesting they be buffed in direct fire,

we have 2 choices,
-
Buff LRMs in their LOS fire mode so they are better when fired with LOS,
so they can compete with other Direct Fire weapons, which a Primary use of LRMs as a weapon System,
-
or we can Nerf all other Direct Fire weapons in MWO to LRMs Direct Fire Utility,
this would require a rework of every non LRM weapon in MWO,

personally i think the first is more likely to happen, so it is this i am working for,

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

because LRMs arnt just indirect fired weapons, they are weapons that Can fire indirectly,
even in TT they were never indirect Only weapons, this is why im suggesting they be buffed in direct fire,

we have 2 choices,
-
Buff LRMs in their LOS fire mode so they are better when fired with LOS,
so they can compete with other Direct Fire weapons, which a Primary use of LRMs as a weapon System,
-
or we can Nerf all other Direct Fire weapons in MWO to LRMs Direct Fire Utility,
this would require a rework of every non LRM weapon in MWO,

personally i think the first is more likely to happen, so it is this i am working for,

Again, they are launched indirectly ergo they are indirect regardless of LOS. The Indirect Fire rule applies only to firing out of LOS, but does not alter the text regarding how LRMs operate. The option I presented embraces the fact they are launched in a ballistic arc and their innate indirect fire while nerfing their direct fire option plus penalizing close range fire support.

[Andi Nagasia]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Again, they are launched indirectly ergo they are indirect regardless of LOS. The Indirect Fire rule applies only to firing out of LOS, but does not alter the text regarding how LRMs operate. The option I presented embraces the fact they are launched in a ballistic arc and their innate indirect fire while nerfing their direct fire option plus penalizing close range fire support.

but the fact they are fired in a ballistic arch has nothing to do with the current conversation,
the fact is LRMs can fire with LOS, this is called Firing them Directly, this is regardless of Arch,
Indirect Fire is when you do not have LOS to the target, and have to get the lock through another Source,
even BattleTech TT acknowledged that LRMs have these 2 Fire Types(DirectFire(LOS) & (IndirectFire)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 30 May 2017 - 03:08 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

but the fact they are fired in a ballistic arch has nothing to do with the current conversation,
the fact is LRMs can fire with LOS, this is called Firing them Directly, this is regardless of Arch,
Indirect Fire is when you do not have LOS to the target, and have to get the lock through another Source,

Again you are confusing how they are launched and the rules regarding direct/indirect fire. By your own position an artillery round is a direct fire weapon since it can be leveled horizontally and fired. A cruise missile is a direct fired weapon even though it is launched at 20-90 degrees at a target within LOS.

Let's step away from the rules and go with physics here. Physics states that the launch angle determines whether the weapon is direct or indirect fired regardless of LOS. What I proposed is to embrace the design difference between the LRM and all the other weapons in the game which is them being fired indirectly. You want to turn them into an SRM5/10/15/20 and make them fire in a direct launch. This will not address the inherent unbalance between LRMs and other weapons that are direct fired. The only way to address that issue is to remove pinpoint accuracy. You refused to touch upon that, so I went with what the text of the weapon and how the universe portrays LRMs which is a weapon that uses ballistic trajectories i.e. indirect fire regardless of LOS.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Andi Nagasia, on 30 May 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

but the fact they are fired in a ballistic arch has nothing to do with the current conversation,
the fact is LRMs can fire with LOS, this is called Firing them Directly, this is regardless of Arch,
Indirect Fire is when you do not have LOS to the target, and have to get the lock through another Source,
even BattleTech TT acknowledged that LRMs have these 2 Fire Types(DirectFire(LOS) & (IndirectFire)

Don't bother Andi, he's completely ignoring the fact that indirect/direct is used by pretty much everyone, even the TT developers, to be defined as shooting at something with or without LOS. He's too hung up on the whole 'IS launchers fire in a ballistic arc' thing to even acknowledge that point. Despite that his original post in this thread used that very same definition, and he only backpedaled out of it when it didn't suit his needs anymore.

Guess a rifle is an 'indirect' weapon when fired at range and raising the barrel to compensate for bullet drop, meaning the round travels somewhat in an arc to the target.

[Oldbob10025]

I find it amusing that almost EVERYONE including the Tier 1 players who make fun of a stupid weapon and no one should take it because laser vomit is better, want to make the LRM's worse?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

Don't bother Andi, he's completely ignoring the fact that indirect/direct is used by pretty much everyone, even the TT developers, to be defined as shooting at something with or without LOS. He's too hung up on the whole 'IS launchers fire in a ballistic arc' thing to even acknowledge that point. Despite that his original post in this thread used that very same definition, and he only backpedaled out of it when it didn't suit his needs anymore.

Guess a rifle is an 'indirect' weapon when fired at range and raising the barrel to compensate for bullet drop, meaning the round travels somewhat in an arc to the target.

No, I'm not because when you aim higher to compensate for bullet drop the angle is still lower than 20 degrees. That is what defines artillery and missiles is their use of 20-70+ degrees on weapon trajectory. I'm using physics and the actual wording of the weapon itself. The rules do not state that an LRM fires directly. Nope, it only offers rules to use them without LOS.

[Andi Nagasia]

anyway, would encourage everyone to Vote,
as so we can get a good feel for how people feel about LRMs,

[Jep Jorgensson]

Tincan Nightmare, on 30 May 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

Don't bother Andi, he's completely ignoring the fact that indirect/direct is used by pretty much everyone, even the TT developers, to be defined as shooting at something with or without LOS. He's too hung up on the whole 'IS launchers fire in a ballistic arc' thing to even acknowledge that point. Despite that his original post in this thread used that very same definition, and he only backpedaled out of it when it didn't suit his needs anymore.

Guess a rifle is an 'indirect' weapon when fired at range and raising the barrel to compensate for bullet drop, meaning the round travels somewhat in an arc to the target.

As a United States Marine qualified in everything from pistols to machine guns, grenade launchers, to mortars and everything in between, I know all about direct and indirect-fire. Anything you point and shoot (fire directly) is (regardless of whether or not you have to compensate for bullet drop caused by gravity) a direct-fire weapon. Anything you have to fire in a high arc (indirectly, as in going up before coming back down) is an indirect-fire weapon. Now, if there is another mortarman or an artilleryman here that knows ballistics like I do, I would like to hear their assessment as well since expert opinions are not a bad thing.

As for our LRM's, hands off. Bad enough we lost some range with them, but now you guys want to mess with them some more? Neg. They are still not now nor never were meta. So lay off LRM's already. The top players have a bad habit of looking down on LRM's as worthless as is. If you guys are so bored that you need to nerf something, try the Gauss/PPC jump snipers.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 May 2017 - 05:02 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

As a United States Marine qualified in everything from pistols to machine guns, grenade launchers, to mortars and everything in between, I know all about direct and indirect-fire. Anything you point and shoot (fire directly) is (regardless of whether or not you have to compensate for bullet drop caused by gravity) a direct-fire weapon. Anything you have to fire in a high arc (indirectly, as in going up before coming back down) is an indirect-fire weapon. Now, if there is another mortarman or an artilleryman here that knows ballistics like I do, I would like to hear their assessment as well since expect opinions are usually not a bad thing.

Thank you for being a voice of reason with facts and knows the difference between the two.

[Ted Wayz]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Again why are you turning an indirect fired weapon into a direct fired one?

Because he keeps getting destroyed by the weapon with most counters in game that just went through two nerfs.

And not the only person. Look for other posts by people who do not seem to be able to take advantage of the multiple hard counters to a weapon that is <50% effective and that only a few people have truly mastered. It is like a guy in a corvette asking for a nerf to hyundais because they got beat in a drag race by one.

[Ruar]

Jep Jorgensson, on 30 May 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

As a United States Marine qualified in everything from pistols to machine guns, grenade launchers, to mortars and everything in between, I know all about direct and indirect-fire. Anything you point and shoot (fire directly) is (regardless of whether or not you have to compensate for bullet drop caused by gravity) a direct-fire weapon. Anything you have to fire in a high arc (indirectly, as in going up before coming back down) is an indirect-fire weapon. Now, if there is another mortarman or an artilleryman here that knows ballistics like I do, I would like to hear their assessment as well since expert opinions are not a bad thing.

As for our LRM's, hands off. Bad enough we lost some range with them, but now you guys want to mess with them some more? Neg. They are still not now nor never were meta. So lay off LRM's already. The top players have a bad habit of looking down on LRM's as worthless as is. If you guys are so bored that you need to nerf something, try the Gauss/PPC jump snipers.

So howitzers can fire both direct and indirect, it's what distinguished them from cannons. An M203 could be both direct and indirect. Heck, the M240 can be used in an indirect role with an FO.

Some weapons absolutely are only one or the other, some weapons can be used for both. Trying to say LRMs are an indirect fire only weapon is misleading because they can do both. It's really a matter of how the missiles fly and whether the target is close or far that determines which way the missile packs are firing in the game. Which also doesn't take into account the fact the missiles home in on their target making pretty much any LOS engagement a direct fire opportunity and any non-LOS engagement indirect fire.

After all we don't really call the Javelin an indirect fire weapon even though it has a high arc at the end of it's flight.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 05:31 PM, said:

So howitzers can fire both direct and indirect, it's what distinguished them from cannons. An M203 could be both direct and indirect. Heck, the M240 can be used in an indirect role with an FO.

Some weapons absolutely are only one or the other, some weapons can be used for both. Trying to say LRMs are an indirect fire only weapon is misleading because they can do both. It's really a matter of how the missiles fly and whether the target is close or far that determines which way the missile packs are firing in the game. Which also doesn't take into account the fact the missiles home in on their target making pretty much any LOS engagement a direct fire opportunity and any non-LOS engagement indirect fire.

After all we don't really call the Javelin an indirect fire weapon even though it has a high arc at the end of it's flight.

Actually, it can't do both. The missiles are launched in a ballistic trajectory i.e. 20-90 degrees regardless of LOS.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 May 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

Actually, it can't do both. The missiles are launched in a ballistic trajectory i.e. 20-90 degrees regardless of LOS.

Yep, and then they home directly to their target...

[Jep Jorgensson]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 05:31 PM, said:

So howitzers can fire both direct and indirect, it's what distinguished them from cannons. An M203 could be both direct and indirect. Heck, the M240 can be used in an indirect role with an FO.

Some weapons absolutely are only one or the other, some weapons can be used for both. Trying to say LRMs are an indirect fire only weapon is misleading because they can do both. It's really a matter of how the missiles fly and whether the target is close or far that determines which way the missile packs are firing in the game. Which also doesn't take into account the fact the missiles home in on their target making pretty much any LOS engagement a direct fire opportunity and any non-LOS engagement indirect fire.

After all we don't really call the Javelin an indirect fire weapon even though it has a high arc at the end of it's flight.

Some weapons can go both ways, yes, but most are primarily or exclusively one of the other.

LRM's are primarily an indirect-fire weapon with the ability to fire directly (if the target is too close for the missiles to start their upward arc). For an weapon to classify as a duel-wielder, it has to be equally effective in both roles. A howitzer can do that (it is just as lethal up close as it is far away). LRM's however, since you need to get in close in order to hit a target directly (before they start their upward arcs), can you truthfully claim that LRM's are equally effective in both roles (up close and far away)?

Starting to split hairs there.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 30 May 2017 - 06:00 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 30 May 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

Yep, and then they home directly to their target...

No, they do not go to their target in a straight horizontal path like a gauss round. They go in a parabolic arc between 20-90 degrees. Once they are 100-200 meters above the battlefield they home in following their guidance system. That is indirect not direct.