41 replies to this topic

[Roughneck45]

LRMs had the flight path you describe here for about a week back in closed beta. Completely broke the game, and became known as the Lurmageddon.

You want it to have that flight path AND get targeting buffs. No thank you.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Roughneck45, on 01 June 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

LRMs had the flight path you describe here for about a week back in closed beta. Completely broke the game, and became known as the Lurmageddon.

You want it to have that flight path AND get targeting buffs. No thank you.

There were numerous problems with how PGI implemented LRMs back then that contributed to Lurmageddon which that was one part of it. The other part that people forget is that LRMs also went for the CT only and didn't hit other parts of the mech.

Yes, it gets a flight path for indirect fire but loses it for direct fire. I made the system balanced for what it is which is indirect fire. No other weapon system is indirect fire so far and if PGI implements Long Toms and Sniper cannons then you'll run into the same problems since both can fire direct and indirect. LRMs are not supposed to be direct fire anyway which is where PGI screwed up.

Ultimax, on 01 June 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

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.

I don't own an LRM mech and I doubt I will run one again. I quoted Sun Tzu and that doesn't make me him. The man was a genius and his principles apply to all aspects of life.

[Pjwned]

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?

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

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And the premise of your thread is that your idea is balanced, and you're actually serious about it?

Wow.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Pjwned, on 01 June 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

And the premise of your thread is that your idea is balanced, and you're actually serious about it?

Wow.

If you care to point out how it's not balanced other then what you posted then we'd go much further in a conversation. Alas, I don't think anyone really wants to have a conversation as evidenced by the replies to this thread.

[kapusta11]

Since when direct fire with LRMs became so OP that it needs nerfing?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Pjwned, on 01 June 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

[Redacted]

Ahh insulting me because you can't make a point huh? I guess that means that your idea doesn't have any serious merit. Also, Ruar didn't do anything other then highlight his hatred of indirect fire. Yeah it's hard to have a conversation with someone that is so biased against something. Now I understand why PGI doesn't listen to its fanbase. They're a bunch of nuts.

Edited by draiocht, 01 June 2017 - 02:51 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[James The Fox Dixon]

kapusta11, on 01 June 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Since when direct fire with LRMs became so OP that it needs nerfing?

It never was OP, but by nerfing it and buffing indirect fire you balance the weapon. LRMs never were meant to be a direct fire weapon as PGI did it. It's always been an indirect weapon that just happens to have special rules for firing without LOS.

I believe it has merit for the following reasons:

1. It's very ineffective close range and will suffer penalties to hit.

2. It's effective at long range as per the weapon's description and for firing without LOS using Tag, et. al..

3. Artemis was created to buff the LRMs to bring them up to parity with Clan LRMs that do not suffer penalties at close range on top of having no minimum range. I attempted to simulate this by providing bonuses to hit for direct fire.

4. No homing missiles for direct fire due to the guidance computers lacking time and/or spatial data to optimally hit a target. Homing only comes into play with indirect fire as the missiles gain altitude and their guidance system gains data for optimal hits.

5. The further out the LRMs are fired they gain bonuses due to point 4 regarding data. They are more accurate when fired at range.

6. Point 5 differentiates LRMs from MRMs and ATMs since both of those are for ranges between SRMs max range and the beginning of LRMs optimal range. This also reinforces the fact that LRMs are indirect fire weapons while the other three are direct fire.

Now care to go through point by point on why this isn't balanced?

[Ruar]

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

It never was OP, but by nerfing it and buffing indirect fire you balance the weapon. LRMs never were meant to be a direct fire weapon as PGI did it. It's always been an indirect weapon that just happens to have special rules for firing without LOS.

I believe it has merit for the following reasons:

1. It's very ineffective close range and will suffer penalties to hit.

2. It's effective at long range as per the weapon's description and for firing without LOS using Tag, et. al..

3. Artemis was created to buff the LRMs to bring them up to parity with Clan LRMs that do not suffer penalties at close range on top of having no minimum range. I attempted to simulate this by providing bonuses to hit for direct fire.

4. No homing missiles for direct fire due to the guidance computers lacking time and/or spatial data to optimally hit a target. Homing only comes into play with indirect fire as the missiles gain altitude and their guidance system gains data for optimal hits.

5. The further out the LRMs are fired they gain bonuses due to point 4 regarding data. They are more accurate when fired at range.

6. Point 5 differentiates LRMs from MRMs and ATMs since both of those are for ranges between SRMs max range and the beginning of LRMs optimal range. This also reinforces the fact that LRMs are indirect fire weapons while the other three are direct fire.

Now care to go through point by point on why this isn't balanced?

Wrong.

LRMs were a dual role weapon capable of both direct and indirect fire. In fact they were always better at direct fire than indirect. You continue to insist that LRMs have to be an indirect fire weapon but I've yet to see anyone provide an argument as to why we even need indirect fire in this game. Even if there was a pressing need for indirect fire no one has yet to provide an argument as to why the games needs a strong indirect fire option considering the problems similar games like WoT have with strong indirect fire options. I can't get anyone to actually answer those two questions beyond "I think the game needs indirect fire".

MWO is a game designed around the concept of direct fire. Every single weapon except one does that job. The one exception does both direct and indirect fire and the mechanic for allowing it to have this power, homing, is so controversial it's the single most discussed and complained about weapon.

LRMs need to be fundamentally changed. They need their direct fire ability buffed while having their indirect fire ability altered so that it still exists but it's not overpowered. This can easily by done by making LRMs perform like MRMs in a direct fire mode with longer range and larger spread. No lock, no having to stay aimed at the target, fire and they travel in a shallow arc to the convergence point of your weapon. They would also need a speed boost from 165 to something like 750 or so to compensate for the lack of guidance.

We know weapons can be toggled between modes because of ECM. So put a mode toggle on LRMs to switch them to indirect fire. In this mode the rounds take a high arc to the target. This time there is the need for a lock but it shouldn't take as long as we currently have. Once lock is achieved the missiles are fired and travel to the location on the ground where the targeted mech was upon firing. Basically what we have no when missiles are in the air and the lock is lost. Once fired the LRM mech doesn't have to hold target if they don't want to, the missiles will travel to that spot. The targeted mech gets an incoming missile alarm and can move or not as they see fit. The missile spread is increased to about 8-10m area so it becomes an area effect weapon in indirect fire mode. Which means you have to fire a bunch of missiles to do any real damage, but the strong direct fire option will still make LRMs something worth using.

Contrary to the OPs thought process, I don't hate indirect fire. I just recognize the significant problems that occur in these kinds of games when there is a strong indirect fire option. I also recognize that MWO is a very fluid game with a lot of movement making indirect fire something that is not truly needed. There are no chokepoints or bottlenecks that need to be bombarded in order to force your opponent to move.

Indirect fire in MWO should be a fun little niche option that can provide some damage, can be used to help push the enemy the way you want when coordinated, but should not be so strong that it becomes the defacto weapon of choice. It should require the same approximate level of skill as every other weapon.

Oh, and with the system I'm suggesting radar dep is no longer a counter because there is no need to hold a lock. AMS is less of a counter because the high arc reduces the size of the fire basket and limits how long the teams AMS can engage before impact. Terrain will still play a factor but a tall enough obstacle can block the rounds because the arc isn't straight up and down. The easiest way of countering the LRMs would be to move.

My suggestion turns LRMs into a true support weapon in indirect mode and a personal weapon in direct mode. More people would take LRMs to augment their long range fire instead of boating them, except in a few specifically designed fire support mechs.

[Pjwned]

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

Ahh insulting me because you can't make a point huh? I guess that means that your idea doesn't have any serious merit. Also, Ruar didn't do anything other then highlight his hatred of indirect fire. Yeah it's hard to have a conversation with someone that is so biased against something. Now I understand why PGI doesn't listen to its fanbase. They're a bunch of nuts.

I chose to be somewhat insulting there and then thought better of it so I deleted the post shortly after.

There's still no need for me to make a point though because somebody else already did and you just ignored nearly all of it, so I'm still not going to bother.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 01 June 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

Wrong.

LRMs were a dual role weapon capable of both direct and indirect fire. In fact they were always better at direct fire than indirect. You continue to insist that LRMs have to be an indirect fire weapon but I've yet to see anyone provide an argument as to why we even need indirect fire in this game. Even if there was a pressing need for indirect fire no one has yet to provide an argument as to why the games needs a strong indirect fire option considering the problems similar games like WoT have with strong indirect fire options. I can't get anyone to actually answer those two questions beyond "I think the game needs indirect fire".

MWO is a game designed around the concept of direct fire. Every single weapon except one does that job. The one exception does both direct and indirect fire and the mechanic for allowing it to have this power, homing, is so controversial it's the single most discussed and complained about weapon.

LRMs need to be fundamentally changed. They need their direct fire ability buffed while having their indirect fire ability altered so that it still exists but it's not overpowered. This can easily by done by making LRMs perform like MRMs in a direct fire mode with longer range and larger spread. No lock, no having to stay aimed at the target, fire and they travel in a shallow arc to the convergence point of your weapon. They would also need a speed boost from 165 to something like 750 or so to compensate for the lack of guidance.

We know weapons can be toggled between modes because of ECM. So put a mode toggle on LRMs to switch them to indirect fire. In this mode the rounds take a high arc to the target. This time there is the need for a lock but it shouldn't take as long as we currently have. Once lock is achieved the missiles are fired and travel to the location on the ground where the targeted mech was upon firing. Basically what we have no when missiles are in the air and the lock is lost. Once fired the LRM mech doesn't have to hold target if they don't want to, the missiles will travel to that spot. The targeted mech gets an incoming missile alarm and can move or not as they see fit. The missile spread is increased to about 8-10m area so it becomes an area effect weapon in indirect fire mode. Which means you have to fire a bunch of missiles to do any real damage, but the strong direct fire option will still make LRMs something worth using.

Contrary to the OPs thought process, I don't hate indirect fire. I just recognize the significant problems that occur in these kinds of games when there is a strong indirect fire option. I also recognize that MWO is a very fluid game with a lot of movement making indirect fire something that is not truly needed. There are no chokepoints or bottlenecks that need to be bombarded in order to force your opponent to move.

Indirect fire in MWO should be a fun little niche option that can provide some damage, can be used to help push the enemy the way you want when coordinated, but should not be so strong that it becomes the defacto weapon of choice. It should require the same approximate level of skill as every other weapon.

Oh, and with the system I'm suggesting radar dep is no longer a counter because there is no need to hold a lock. AMS is less of a counter because the high arc reduces the size of the fire basket and limits how long the teams AMS can engage before impact. Terrain will still play a factor but a tall enough obstacle can block the rounds because the arc isn't straight up and down. The easiest way of countering the LRMs would be to move.

My suggestion turns LRMs into a true support weapon in indirect mode and a personal weapon in direct mode. More people would take LRMs to augment their long range fire instead of boating them, except in a few specifically designed fire support mechs.

I already disproved your assertion that it is a direct fire weapon by the text of the weapon itself. It fires indirectly regardless of LOS. Once you can grasp that concept then we can start in a real discussion. A mortar is an indirect fire weapon as is a cruise missile that the LRM is based on. This is regardless of the fact their target is in LOS or not. An indirect fire weapon arcs to the target at an angle of 20-90 degrees. A direct fire weapon is not arced and is designed to be pointed directly at a target with the bullet/laser traveling in a straight line.

You confuse the rule of firing indirectly to targets out of LOS with them being indirect only weapons. Only LRMs, Long Toms, Snipers, and other indirect weapons can fire on targets out of LOS. They still fire indirectly at targets within LOS. The rules of the game, military, etc... all contradict you.

Hence your premise is flawed. When you can actually use logic and facts of what is direct and indirect fire then we can talk.

Also you contradicted yourself on not hating LRMs. You even admitted to it in this thread and others.

If MWO wasn't designed for indirect fire then why are LRMs in the game? Why are they fired in a parabolic arc just like an indirect weapon is? The game disputes you as does PGI. Want to try logic and facts next time?

[Pjwned]

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

I already disproved your assertion that it is a direct fire weapon by the text of the weapon itself. It fires indirectly regardless of LOS. Once you can grasp that concept then we can start in a real discussion. A mortar is an indirect fire weapon as is a cruise missile that the LRM is based on. This is regardless of the fact their target is in LOS or not. An indirect fire weapon arcs to the target at an angle of 20-90 degrees. A direct fire weapon is not arced and is designed to be pointed directly at a target with the bullet/laser traveling in a straight line.

You confuse the rule of firing indirectly to targets out of LOS with them being indirect only weapons. Only LRMs, Long Toms, Snipers, and other indirect weapons can fire on targets out of LOS. They still fire indirectly at targets within LOS. The rules of the game, military, etc... all contradict you.

Hence your premise is flawed. When you can actually use logic and facts of what is direct and indirect fire then we can talk.

Also you contradicted yourself on not hating LRMs. You even admitted to it in this thread and others.

If MWO wasn't designed for indirect fire then why are LRMs in the game? Why are they fired in a parabolic arc just like an indirect weapon is? The game disputes you as does PGI. Want to try logic and facts next time?

Indirect fire doesn't exclude direct fire capabilities, and I don't know why you're using MWO as an example because LRMs are obviously both.

As if it's not obvious enough seeing how LRMs work in this game and in Tabletop, if LRMs were not meant for direct fire at all then Artemis IV wouldn't give the benefits that it does or probably even exist.

Edited by Pjwned, 01 June 2017 - 06:29 PM.

[Ruar]

James The Fox Dixon, on 01 June 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

I already disproved your assertion that it is a direct fire weapon by the text of the weapon itself. It fires indirectly regardless of LOS. Once you can grasp that concept then we can start in a real discussion. A mortar is an indirect fire weapon as is a cruise missile that the LRM is based on. This is regardless of the fact their target is in LOS or not. An indirect fire weapon arcs to the target at an angle of 20-90 degrees. A direct fire weapon is not arced and is designed to be pointed directly at a target with the bullet/laser traveling in a straight line.

You confuse the rule of firing indirectly to targets out of LOS with them being indirect only weapons. Only LRMs, Long Toms, Snipers, and other indirect weapons can fire on targets out of LOS. They still fire indirectly at targets within LOS. The rules of the game, military, etc... all contradict you.

Hence your premise is flawed. When you can actually use logic and facts of what is direct and indirect fire then we can talk.

Also you contradicted yourself on not hating LRMs. You even admitted to it in this thread and others.

If MWO wasn't designed for indirect fire then why are LRMs in the game? Why are they fired in a parabolic arc just like an indirect weapon is? The game disputes you as does PGI. Want to try logic and facts next time?

I remain amazed you keep repeating the same tired words despite the number of times they've been refuted. One more try though because I'm currently an instructor and it's kind of a habit to explain to someone why they have the wrong answer and then steer them down the right path.

First, you are wrong about indirect fire.

Wikipedia Defition: Indirect fire is aiming and firing a projectile without relying on a direct line of sight between the gun and its target, as in the case of direct fire.

AAP-06 NATO GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: indirect fire / tir indirect Fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer.

Battletech Master Rules, Pg 80: "Indirect fire allows a unit that does not have a direct line of sight to a target to attack that taret, though some friendly units must have a valid line of sight to the target..."

There, the commonly accepted definition, the NATO military definition, and the Battletech definition. Indirect fire is not classified by the way the round travels but whether or not the firing element can see their target. Case closed.

Next, your assertion that LRMs are indirect fire weapons. According to Sarna Wiki and Era Report 2750 "LRMs are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles while causing less damage."

Battletech Master Rules, Pg 80: "Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly."

Clearly the LRM is a weapon capable of both direct and indirect fire options. Since the wording says "capable" and "may" it means the LRM is primarily a direct fire weapon with the option to fire in an indirect role.

Additional proof can be found on the Master Rules charts and tables where indirect fire requires a +1 to hit penalty. If LRMs were only an indirect fire weapon then they would not receive an additional penalty.

Please, stop the incessant declaration that LRMs are only and have to be indirect weapons. They are not. They are direct fire weapons that can be used indirectly with a spotter. Which means my suggestion for change to LRMs to make them strong in the direct fire role and capable of indirect fire fits the BT definition perfectly.

Additionally, you still have not provided a reason for why the game even needs indirect fire mode. On top of that you haven't been able to justify why an indirect option should be strong.

You have brought nothing to the discussion other than your unsupported opinion. You consistently ignore examples provided as support from opposing viewpoints. Basically you are just standing there saying "because I say so" and that's supposed to be a good enough reason for everyone to just agree with you.

Edited by Ruar, 01 June 2017 - 07:09 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Pjwned, on 01 June 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

Indirect fire doesn't exclude direct fire capabilities, and I don't know why you're using MWO as an example because LRMs are obviously both.

As if it's not obvious enough seeing how LRMs work in this game and in Tabletop, if LRMs were not meant for direct fire at all then Artemis IV wouldn't give the benefits that it does or probably even exist.

I'm talking about MWO because this is a forum for MWO and I'm wanting to bring forth a better solution to LRMs. I never said that they weren't capable of firing at targets in LOS. I said that the missiles are launched in a parabolic arc i.e. indirectly not directly.

Ruar, on 01 June 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

I remain amazed you keep repeating the same tired words despite the number of times they've been refuted. One more try though because I'm currently an instructor and it's kind of a habit to explain to someone why they have the wrong answer and then steer them down the right path.

First, you are wrong about indirect fire.

Wikipedia Defition: Indirect fire is aiming and firing a projectile without relying on a direct line of sight between the gun and its target, as in the case of direct fire.

AAP-06 NATO GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: indirect fire / tir indirect Fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer.

Battletech Master Rules, Pg 80: "Indirect fire allows a unit that does not have a direct line of sight to a target to attack that taret, though some friendly units must have a valid line of sight to the target..."

There, the commonly accepted definition, the NATO military definition, and the Battletech definition. Indirect fire is not classified by the way the round travels but whether or not the firing element can see their target. Case closed.

Next, your assertion that LRMs are indirect fire weapons. According to Sarna Wiki and Era Report 2750 "LRMs are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles while causing less damage."

Battletech Master Rules, Pg 80: "Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly."

Clearly the LRM is a weapon capable of both direct and indirect fire options. Since the wording says "capable" and "may" it means the LRM is primarily a direct fire weapon with the option to fire in an indirect role.

Additional proof can be found on the Master Rules charts and tables where indirect fire requires a +1 to hit penalty. If LRMs were only an indirect fire weapon then they would not receive an additional penalty.

Please, stop the incessant declaration that LRMs are only and have to be indirect weapons. They are not. They are direct fire weapons that can be used indirectly with a spotter. Which means my suggestion for change to LRMs to make them strong in the direct fire role and capable of indirect fire fits the BT definition perfectly.

Additionally, you still have not provided a reason for why the game even needs indirect fire mode. On top of that you haven't been able to justify why an indirect option should be strong.

You have brought nothing to the discussion other than your unsupported opinion. You consistently ignore examples provided as support from opposing viewpoints. Basically you are just standing there saying "because I say so" and that's supposed to be a good enough reason for everyone to just agree with you.

Citing Wikipedia: That's cute. You are citing a source that can be changed by anyone. Since you cited it then I'll use the full paragraph that you chopped out to selectively choose a single sentence out of.

Quote

NATO defines indirect fire as "Fire delivered at a target which cannot be seen by the aimer."^[1] The implication is that azimuth and/or elevation 'aiming' is done using instrumental methods. Hence indirect fire means applying 'firing data' to azimuth and elevation sights and laying these sights. Indirect fire can be used when the target is visible from the firing position. However, it is mostly used when the target is at longer range and invisible to the firer due to the terrain. Longer range uses a higher trajectory, and in theory maximum range is achieved with an elevation angle of 45 degrees.^[2][3][4]

Calling and adjusting indirect artillery fire on a target unseen to the soldiers manning the guns, a modern United States example

[/left]

[/center]


Indirect fire is most commonly associated with field artillery (although field artillery was originally and until after World War I a direct fire weapon, hence the bullet-shields fitted to the carriages of guns such as the famous M1897 75mm). It is also used with mortars and naval guns against shore targets, sometimes with machine guns, and has been used with tank and anti-tank guns and by anti-aircraft guns against surface targets.

It is reasonable to assume that original purpose of indirect fire was to enable fire from a ‘covered position’, one where gunners can not be seen and engaged by their enemies (that and as the range of artillery lengthened, it was impossible to see the target past all the intervening terrain). The concealment aspect remains important, but from World War I equally important was the capability to concentrate the fire of many batteries at the same target or set of targets. This became increasingly important as the range of artillery increased, allowing each battery to have an ever-greater area of influence, but required command and control arrangements to enable concentration of fire. The physical laws of ballistics means that guns firing larger and heavier projectile can send them further than smaller-calibre guns firing lighter shells. By the end of the 20th century, the typical maximum range for the most common guns was about 24 to 30 km, up from about 8 km in World War I.

Amazing that it says exactly what I said it did. Indirect fire is using parabolic arcs to hit a target regardless of LOS. Let's go to what the US military has to say.

Quote

indirect fire — Fire delivered on a target that is not itself used as a point of aim for the
weapons or the director.


direct fire — Fire delivered on a target using the target itself as a point of aim for either the
weapon or the director. (JP 3-09.3)

Since LRMs are delivered to a target that is not used as the point of aim and the firing mech is not the director of said weapons due to LRMs being guided missiles they are indirect weapons.

Battletech Master Rules are invalid as they have been superceded by Battletech Total Warfare. However, Battletech makes the mistake of confusing indirect weapons with indirect fire to target's out of LOS. A mortar still fires at a target indirectly regardless of if it has LOS. It's how the weapon system works just like the LRM does.

LOS does not determine if a weapon is direct fire or not. It only means that targets outside of LOS can be hit by indirect weapons like LRMs.

So if you stop moving goal posts and altering definitions to support your argument I will start to take you seriously.

[Ruar]

And I'm done. You literally copy and pasted definitions which go counter to your own opinion, but you just can't see it. There is absolutely nothing you present worth taking up more of my time.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Ruar, on 01 June 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

And I'm done. You literally copy and pasted definitions which go counter to your own opinion, but you just can't see it. There is absolutely nothing you present worth taking up more of my time.

No, I pointed out that you ignored the definitions of what indirect fire actually is from your own source and you don't like it. When you cite something you cite the entirety of it not cherry pick one sentence out of the entire section that says the opposite of what you've portrayed. There's a term for that... it's called intellectual dishonesty. Since you are unable to be honest and admit that you are wrong and have been told you are wrong by not just me, but retired military officers that did use mortars and other indirect weapons told you as well. I'll take their word over some civilian that doesn't know their butt from a hole in the ground.

Bye since you have nothing to offer to this conversation other than your bigotry of LRMs.

[Puppy Monkey Baby]

I just wanted to point out that the BMR does not apply, since this is not the tabletop game Battletech.

I'll go back to my Highlander IIC cockpit now and weep.

[Ruar]

Puppy Monkey Baby, on 01 June 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

I just wanted to point out that the BMR does not apply, since this is not the tabletop game Battletech.

I'll go back to my Highlander IIC cockpit now and weep.

I wasn't saying MWO lrms follow the same rules, I was just using the original definition. James has a delusion that LRM'S means only indirect fire so I went back to source to show it isnt. The updated Total Warfare rules say the same thing. The MWO glossary of terms doesn't even use the term indirect fire when describing the LRM. James just made up a definition because it fits his argument. If he used the accepted definition from multiple sources he'd have nothing to support his point.

[James The Fox Dixon]

So we're back to insults and being off topic. *Yawn* Wake me up when someone is willing to discuss this without being insulting or off topic.

[sycocys]

"LRM's are currently and have always been a viable weapon, even in comp play."

"We need to change LRMs so they don't suck anymore." x5 threads.


----
If LRMs were actually a viable weapon, you wouldn't need all these threads trying to convince people otherwise - with all the goofy replies to people trying to also convince people they are a good weapon. You argue both side of the topic and never present any evidence that you have enough competence with the game to make either case.

[James The Fox Dixon]

This is what Ruar and the haters think is a direct fire weapon. Enjoy the fireworks since it this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that LRMs are indirect fire as per their write up.



https://youtu.be/gs3mYHYBDrc

EDIT: Information about ballistic trajectories.

http://hyperphysics....hbase/traj.html

http://www.mpoweruk..../ballistics.htm

Funny, but this all contradicts them. LOS does not equal direct fire. It never has. LOS only determines if you see the target and does not alter the base physical characteristics of the weapon system. Indirect fire =/= Ballistic Firing Arc whether in LOS or not.

EDIT 2: MWO has LRMs firing at an arc which means they are an indirect fire weapon. The animations prove this to be true.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 02 June 2017 - 02:45 AM.