41 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

At close range they suffer penalties on to hit as per their BT weapon write up, but to compensate they should get bonuses for every 100 meters past 180 meter minimum range. They also should increase in speed from the time they are fired till the time they hit in order to keep them in line with ballistics. They get a buff to indirect fire and a nerf to direct fire because they are launched at a 90 degree angle. This way you differentiate LRMs from ATM, MRM, SRM, and SSRM. Out of all the missile types in BT, the LRM is the only indirect fire one.

I would increase their speed up to 277 meters per second once they achieve 100-200 meter altitude and come down. The only way to buff direct fire is with the use of TAG/Narc/Artemis.

Direct Fire Mode: LRM spread is larger then indirect fire mode and can't go around intervening terrain. Basically, they lose their homing ability and can be stopped by terrain as it is a straight shot. The internal guidance cannot act fast enough to maintain internal lock on the target.

Indirect fire: Ignores intervening terrain, except for caves and other rock formations that cover the top of the enemy mech. Spread is tighter due to the missiles' guidance system being able to compensate for them while maintaining a solid lock.

Locks are not mandatory for indirect fire mode since these are guided munitions, but they are needed for direct fire mode.

EDIT:

Time for some numbers.

Range BTH* Spread
180-270 30% 5.2m
271-370 35% 4.7m
371-470 40% 4.2m
471-570 45% 3.7m
571-670 50% 3.2m
671-770 55% 2.7m
771-870 60% 2.2m

*BTH=Base To Hit

This makes LOS indirect fire at close range to be inaccurate while long range indirect fire more accurate. It also allows for Narc, TAG, and Artemis to affect the BTH positively.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 02 June 2017 - 08:58 AM.

[N a p e s]

wait, what?

[cazidin]

I'm sorry, James. I like you, you're a nice guy, but LRMs don't need to be re-worked. Players just need to bring AMS, invest in Radar Deprivation or find a nice rock to hide under/behind.

[Trev Firestorm]

You lost me at nerf direct fire, what you describe actively discourages getting your own locks and exposing/sharing armor... I can see some buffs and mechanics reworks to make them more useful at all skill levels but this idea just doesn't do it.

[Andi Nagasia]

OK, here now,


so Direct Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright? like SRMs but with Homing?
you would need a lock onto a Target to fire(so the removal of Dumb Fire Feature?)
&
Indirect Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright Up? like near 90* going up and comming down?
to avoid turrain as noted? ok i can see how that could work but i can also see LRMs becoming too strong with this,
but could you explain how you wouldnt need locks to fire on a target? or you dont need to hold locks?

[Queen of England]

What objective are you trying to achieve with this plan?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Andi Nagasia, on 31 May 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

OK, here now,


so Direct Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright? like SRMs but with Homing?
you would need a lock onto a Target to fire(so the removal of Dumb Fire Feature?)
&
Indirect Fire mode would be mostly Fire Stright Up? like near 90* going up and comming down?
to avoid turrain as noted? ok i can see how that could work but i can also see LRMs becoming too strong with this,
but could you explain how you wouldnt need locks to fire on a target? or you dont need to hold locks?

RE Direct Fire: No homing on direct fire and whatever is in the way blocks it.

RE Indirect Fire: The internal guidance of the missiles handles it so locks are not needed. It also means that you can lay down a barrage in a target area much like you do for Artillery/Air Strikes and whatever is in there gets hit.

It's no more OP then what other weapons can do. The trade off is with direct fire you lose the homing and accuracy, but with indirect fire you gain the homing and accuracy. It comes down to choice much like every other weapon in the game.

Trev Firestorm, on 31 May 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

You lost me at nerf direct fire, what you describe actively discourages getting your own locks and exposing/sharing armor... I can see some buffs and mechanics reworks to make them more useful at all skill levels but this idea just doesn't do it.

Yes, it is a nerf to direct fire and for close range support as per the weapon's description. However, you gain accuracy through indirect fire. There is no needing to hold a lock as they are fire and forget just like all the other weapons in the game.

Also, you don't share armor. That's a dumb idea to believe it. I can no more give you the armor from my mech to have you put it on yours then you can to me. You are going to get hit if you are either the biggest threat or the most damaged through focus fire.

[Ruar]

So scout lights up the target that is behind a hill/building. LRM mech points at target, fires, missiles arc up, go over the hill/building, and hit the target?

No waiting for a lock. No holding a lock. Just fire and forget and the missiles hit?

Oh, and terrain no longer matters unless it is directly overhead?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 04:07 PM, said:

So scout lights up the target that is behind a hill/building. LRM mech points at target, fires, missiles arc up, go over the hill/building, and hit the target?

No waiting for a lock. No holding a lock. Just fire and forget and the missiles hit?

Oh, and terrain no longer matters unless it is directly overhead?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 05:31 PM, said:

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And you honestly don't see just how overpowered a fire and forget, no lock concept on an indirect fire weapon that also negates 90%+ of all terrain?

The only reason not to take LRMs at that point would be because you are taking a scout so people could shoot LRMs.

[Wraith31]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

At close range they suffer penalties on to hit as per their BT weapon write up, but to compensate they should get bonuses for every 100 meters past 180 meter minimum range. They also should increase in speed from the time they are fired till the time they hit in order to keep them in line with ballistics. They get a buff to indirect fire and a nerf to direct fire because they are launched at a 90 degree angle. This way you differentiate LRMs from ATM, MRM, SRM, and SSRM. Out of all the missile types in BT, the LRM is the only indirect fire one.

I would increase their speed up to 277 meters per second once they achieve 100-200 meter altitude and come down. The only way to buff direct fire is with the use of TAG/Narc/Artemis.

Direct Fire Mode: LRM spread is larger then indirect fire mode and can't go around intervening terrain. Basically, they lose their homing ability and can be stopped by terrain as it is a straight shot. The internal guidance cannot act fast enough to maintain internal lock on the target.

Indirect fire: Ignores intervening terrain, except for caves and other rock formations that cover the top of the enemy mech. Spread is tighter due to the missiles' guidance system being able to compensate for them while maintaining a solid lock.

Locks are not mandatory for indirect fire mode since these are guided munitions, but they are needed for direct fire mode.

I am not high enough to understand where you thought any of this was a good idea...sorry m8.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

And you honestly don't see just how overpowered a fire and forget, no lock concept on an indirect fire weapon that also negates 90%+ of all terrain?

The only reason not to take LRMs at that point would be because you are taking a scout so people could shoot LRMs.

It's no more overpowered than any of the direct fire weapons that don't need a lock and have zero counters. Want to try again?

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 06:52 PM, said:

It's no more overpowered than any of the direct fire weapons that don't need a lock and have zero counters. Want to try again?

Terrain is the primary counter against direct fire weapons. You are removing terrain, radar dep, and reducing the effectiveness of AMS with your suggestions. Basically you are taking away every counter to LRMs and giving them free reign to be point and click weapons with no downside.

I honestly can't tell if you are just trolling at this point or if you are serious. Because your idea would destroy the game.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 31 May 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

Terrain is the primary counter against direct fire weapons. You are removing terrain, radar dep, and reducing the effectiveness of AMS with your suggestions. Basically you are taking away every counter to LRMs and giving them free reign to be point and click weapons with no downside.

I honestly can't tell if you are just trolling at this point or if you are serious. Because your idea would destroy the game.

Nope, I'm not removing them from LRMs being fired at a target in line of sight. Funny, but all the direct fire weapons are stopped by terrain. An LRM is not a direct fire weapon. It is an indirect fire weapon, so yes, terrain will not stop it. Radar Dep and AMS will still function as normal. Did you want to try again with a real argument or are you going to troll me?

[Ruar]

Last attempt at providing some reason to your thread.

You can't say radar dep and AMS will function as normal.

Radar deprivation won't matter when you still need LOS from a spotter to allow LRM mechs the ability to target and shoot. However, since you removed the need for a lock then radar dep won't be able to break the lock once shots are fired. It would take one second or less for a target to be lit up and fired on. Then your fire and forget missiles will hit the target unless there is overhead cover. Radar dep will have no value because there is no lock to break.

AMS will be of limited value because the missiles are going to arc high at a faster velocity. By the time they get in range of the AMS they are diving straight down with very little time to engage. This makes the AMS less effective because the LRMs are in the fire basket for a shorter period of time.

Then you are removing the value of terrain meaning there is almost no where a player can go to counter LRMs. Your immediate response might be something like "but they are weaker at direct fire so just charge the LRM mech". Which sounds great until you realize that any pilot with two functioning brain cells is going to do everything in their power to avoid any kind of LOS on targets so they can maximize the fire and forget indirect mechanic.

Just imagine a canyon match. Instead of moving up to the high ground, everyone will be rolling LRMs and staying in the wadi's. Scouts will just run around getting targets, peaking as much as possible while the LRM mechs are dropping rounds straight down onto everyone that gets lit up.

Pick any map you want. The entire game will shift to hiding out of LOS and engaging anything that is lit up in range. There will be no point to direct fire weapons because no one except the fastest mechs will even bother to close the distance since LRMs give you everything. HPG might be the exception where people sprint to the basement simply so they can't get hit by LRMs.

Again, your idea is bad. You don't truly understand how bad because apparently you haven't played any games where indirect is that strong. I've seen it in WoT and the artillery there is nowhere close to being as OP as your suggestion, yet that artillery makes matches miserable to play.

Your suggestion would kill MWO.

There's your argument. In small pieces so hopefully you can digest them slowly before you respond. I doubt it though. You'll probably just respond with "nuh uh... that's not how it would work" without actually providing ANY kind of example of why it wouldn't work the way listed.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Radar Dep would function normally as the missiles would be the ones affected not the mech that fired them. It will help break the lock when the target gets into cover.

AMS will still shoot down the missiles as they come in.

No, my idea is pretty good since it gives LRMs a purpose as well as promoting role warfare. You just don't like it because you're getting hit by indirect fire when there are 4 hard counters in the game to the missiles. If you notice, I didn't change any of the counters and kept them the same.

You assumed something and set up a strawman to attack while ignoring what I wrote. LRMs are indirect fire weapons with no other weapon system filling that role. You see, I embrace the fact that they are indirect fire only and limited their effectiveness in direct fire mode to limit competition between them and other weapon systems.

It also requires skill as you do have to compute all the variables mentally on where the missiles will end up. It's called trig and geometry.

[Trev Firestorm]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 May 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Also, you don't share armor. That's a dumb idea to believe it. I can no more give you the armor from my mech to have you put it on yours then you can to me. You are going to get hit if you are either the biggest threat or the most damaged through focus fire.

If you don't understand this concept you have a serious problem, its about target switching/ giving the front liners the opportunity to get defocused (i.e. duck out of sight and wait for the enemy to pick a new target) rather than the idea of straight tanking hits (the phrase is a little misleading in that regard I suppose). Get the enemy to switch targets often by rotation... yeah just sticking to 'armor sharing'.

Also your concept breaks itself when a target switches between LOS unless you mean IDF to be a manually toggled mode. Further it is self contradictory forcing a lock for direct fire but somehow magically not needing one for IDF.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Trev Firestorm, on 01 June 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

If you don't understand this concept you have a serious problem, its about target switching/ giving the front liners the opportunity to get defocused (i.e. duck out of sight and wait for the enemy to pick a new target) rather than the idea of straight tanking hits (the phrase is a little misleading in that regard I suppose). Get the enemy to switch targets often by rotation... yeah just sticking to 'armor sharing'.

Also your concept breaks itself when a target switches between LOS unless you mean IDF to be a manually toggled mode. Further it is self contradictory forcing a lock for direct fire but somehow magically not needing one for IDF.

You can say I don't understand, but I do. I think it's a stupid tactic and easily countered.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

You can say I don't understand, but I do. I think it's a stupid tactic and easily countered.

This actually speaks volumes about why it's so hard to get you to understand why your ideas are bad.

Armor sharing is one of the best ways for a team to keep as many mechs up and still shooting as possible. By rotating who is up front taking hits, creating targeting confusion, and just plain being distracting a team is able to keep more guns in the fight for a longer period of time. Ducking behind cover to break locks while someone else steps up to be locked reduces the overall damage by forcing the LRM mechs to constantly cycle targets. It also allows for heat to dissipate while a new firing position is reached.

There are more advantages for armor sharing as well, but I'm going to stop because I honestly can't see any of what I just said making sense to you. Based on our previous conversations you are going to come back saying I'm wrong and then provide no example to support your claim. If you do happen to provide some kind of example it will be extremely narrow in focus and only apply to a small portion of what I already mentioned. You will then use this fractional instance in an attempt to invalidate every other point made, regardless of whether or not what you say can even be compared to the other points.

I just don't understand how you can deny everything presented and continue with your misguided assumptions. It's not like you even counter what's presented... you just deny and move on. It's actually rather sad to see people who are incapable of doing research, applying logic, and adjusting their assessment based on evidence provided.

Edited by Ruar, 01 June 2017 - 12:04 PM.

[Ultimax]

N a p e s, on 31 May 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

wait, what?

You're replying to someone who thinks they are Sun Tzu because they can leech off of other player's work to find position and hold locks while he hides behind his team lobbing LRMs at the big red targeting box.