44 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

So I was looking at the kickass Battletech beta gameplays. Their ACs suck though, like the AC20 of the hunchback doing burst fire, and that long too, seriously it looks all wrong.

However their LRMs look a lot better in MWO, functions pretty well too. Of course it spreads damage as expected, but still looks a lot more kickass.



Something I noticed is that, there are two modes of fire -- Direct and Indirect. The Indirect fire of the LRM follows a ballistic trajectory that circumvents most covers, and i haven't really seen it done in Beta but LRMs cannot be blocked by cover AFAIK.

And then there is the Direct fire, LRMs going in straight lines. It's shown at the MW3 too:



The thing is that, assuming that the Velocity of 140m/s as dictated of the game does not account of the ballistic trajectory, this means that the curving pathway of the LRMs trying to circumvent cover would have taken longer to hit because of the longer path.

What if LRMs would go on a straight line when you have LOS? Of course when the individual launcher is blocked then it would go ballistic instead. Because the LRMs take the straight path which is the shorter path, instead of the longer ballistic path, it should encourage people to get their own locks too because it increases the likelyhood that they would land a hit with the LRMs due to less time to hit.

What do you think? Personally i would prefer if LRMs that are not artemised would remain ballistic, but only Artemised launchers could fire in straight lines. So that the Artemis bonus would "manifest" in one other way.

Poll: https://mwomercs.com...fire-lrms-poll/

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 June 2017 - 10:48 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Well with MRM coming it seems like that role of direct fire will be taken up by them.

But the idea of firing LRMs without a lock I wish worked in artillery style projectile paths, with the range determined by how far up or down you are aiming at the time of firing. Aiming lowest as possible would make them travel around 200m for example, looking up as far as possible making them travel around 900m.

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 09 June 2017 - 10:57 PM, said:

Well with MRM coming it seems like that role of direct fire will be taken up by them.

But the idea of firing LRMs without a lock I wish worked in artillery style projectile paths, with the range determined by how far up or down you are aiming at the time of firing. Aiming lowest as possible would make them travel around 200m for example, looking up as far as possible making them travel around 900m.

You know you can shoot LRMs without lock right?

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Missile flight time is not dependant on the ballistic trajectory.

[Shifty McSwift]

The6thMessenger, on 09 June 2017 - 11:02 PM, said:

You know you can shoot LRMs without lock right?

Yeah but they go weirdly in pretty unpredictable, or at least hard to effectively manage, paths.

I know this is for nade launching trajectory, but applying the general idea to LRMs could work and make sense;



Rather than based on what the crosshair is currently pointing at, more based on set trajectories determined by the height you are aiming (unless you targeting a mech, in which case they would lock fire).

[The6thMessenger]

Shifty McSwift, on 09 June 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Yeah but they go weirdly in pretty unpredictable, or at least hard to effectively manage, paths.

I know this is for nade launching trajectory, but applying the general idea to LRMs could work and make sense;



Rather than based on what the crosshair is currently pointing at, more based on set trajectories determined by the height you are aiming (unless you targeting a mech, in which case they would lock fire).

Basically like the Long-Tom of the MWLL?

Sure i guess, but i prefer this one. Considering that the missiles are slow, i don't see much use firing them without lock anyways.

[El Bandito]

I'd support LoS flat trajectory LRMs with increased velocity. Like in this MW2: Mercenaries cinematic.

https://youtu.be/8qRmjNexfE0?t=18

The6thMessenger, on 09 June 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

So I was looking at the kickass Battletech beta gameplays. Their ACs suck though, like the AC20 of the hunchback doing burst fire, and that long too, seriously it looks all wrong.

Off topic but, BT autocannons can be burst fire, depending on the manufacturer. On this Mechcommander intro, you can see the HBK doing burstfire with its AC20.

https://youtu.be/HcCxK5jq65I?t=125

Edited by El Bandito, 10 June 2017 - 12:17 AM.

[Kroete]

The6thMessenger, on 09 June 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

What if LRMs would go on a straight line when you have LOS? Of course when the individual launcher is blocked then it would go ballistic instead. Because the LRMs take the straight path which is the shorter path, instead of the longer ballistic path, it should encourage people to get their own locks too because it increases the likelyhood that they would land a hit with the LRMs due to less time to hit.

This would make them an inferior lbx, a few parts of a second less flighttime wouldnt change that.
Maybe if they would have the flightspeed of the lbx ...

If they want to balance them, they need to remove stealth from ecm first, then they can balance them properly.

Edited by Kroete, 10 June 2017 - 12:18 AM.

[RestosIII]

Shifty McSwift, on 09 June 2017 - 11:09 PM, said:

Spoiler

I'm tired and can't really debate LRM mechanics right now, but is it just me, or is the top illustration there incorrect? The Arc it shows is wrong for where the end of the barrel is. AFAIK grenades don't change their direction to be a higher arc than the barrel when launched, correct?

[Shifty McSwift]

RestosIII, on 10 June 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

I'm tired and can't really debate LRM mechanics right now, but is it just me, or is the top illustration there incorrect? The Arc it shows is wrong for where the end of the barrel is. AFAIK grenades don't change their direction to be a higher arc than the barrel when launched, correct?

It is the design of that specific model/type, notice the launcher itself is designed in a way that has the barrel angled slightly upward even when at rifle level to shoulder and eye.

[The6thMessenger]

El Bandito, on 10 June 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

I'd support LoS flat trajectory LRMs with increased velocity. Like in this MW2: Mercenaries cinematic.

https://youtu.be/8qRmjNexfE0?t=18

Considering that a straight line is shorter, i think velocity increase is overkill. The shortened distance already lowers the time it takes to hit the target. But sure i guess.

El Bandito, on 10 June 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

Off topic but, BT autocannons can be burst fire, depending on the manufacturer. On this Mechcommander intro, you can see the HBK doing burstfire with its AC20.

https://youtu.be/HcCxK5jq65I?t=125

I don't mind short burst fire, but then looking at BT, the AC20s just hosing targets down. That seems wrong to me.

[RestosIII]

Shifty McSwift, on 10 June 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

It is the design of that specific model/type, notice the launcher itself is designed in a way that has the barrel angled slightly upward even when at rifle level to shoulder and eye.

I get that, but the arc is still off from the barrel itself. Might just be my crap eyes being wrong, but it bugs me.

On the subject of LRMs, I still wish they were fire-and-forget, with lower arcs on direct fire. Boom, I'd suddenly have fun in my lore Timber Wolf Prime.

[Shifty McSwift]

RestosIII, on 10 June 2017 - 01:04 AM, said:

I get that, but the arc is still off from the barrel itself. Might just be my crap eyes being wrong, but it bugs me.

On the subject of LRMs, I still wish they were fire-and-forget, with lower arcs on direct fire. Boom, I'd suddenly have fun in my lore Timber Wolf Prime.

Oh, right I think that's just because its a pretty simple image for the basic concept, there's no ranging etc either. It's definitely nothing wrong with your eyes lol. It's almost like one of those optical illusions if you look at the first or last image alone, it is his line of sight, or the outline of a distant hill he is firing over ;D

[Wil McCullough]

The "in muh lore" guys will tell you that the number behind the autocannon is an approximation of the "damage level" rather than the shell caliber.

Like, according to lore, most acs actually fire in bursts. Iirc, there's only one ac20 gun that fires a single shell.

[Tarl Cabot]

Wil McCullough, on 10 June 2017 - 05:36 AM, said:

The "in muh lore" guys will tell you that the number behind the autocannon is an approximation of the "damage level" rather than the shell caliber.

Like, according to lore, most acs actually fire in bursts. Iirc, there's only one ac20 gun that fires a single shell.

That could be one way to balance by "quirk" where one X mech/variant fires more pellets for the same ballistic weapon than Y mech/variant.

[Connor Davion]

Thanks for the MW3 intro. I wish I could get it to work on W10. Those were the days. MW3 was awesome but MW2 is still my favorite MW game.

Though I am sure the rose colored glasses of nostalgia have some effect on my memories.

[Wil McCullough]

Tarl Cabot, on 10 June 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

That could be one way to balance by "quirk" where one X mech/variant fires more pellets for the same ballistic weapon than Y mech/variant.

Yeah i actually really want to see something like this in mwo where weapons, even in the same "group", have different quirks in performance.

Like when you select a weapon system, there's a slider below that allows you to "customize" the weapon by say, improving range (up to a certain threshold) but causing increased heat, or having lower range or laser duration and less heat gen or something.

But that's for another time and another topic. Don't wanna hijack 6th's thread. Heh.

[Ted Wayz]

You are right, ballistics should have a trajectory that includes an arc. A firing solution for ballistics should include a lock for distance.

Good suggestion.

[Wildstreak]

Battletech ACs don't suck, indeed there is debate about them except the AC20 being too strong.
AC damage in Battletech:
AC2 buffed by 12.5
AC5 buffed by 10
AC10 buffed by 7.5
AC20 buffed by 5

On top of that they do Stability, a feature not in MWO, fill up the enemy Stability and they fall over, pilot takes a hit and until the fallen unit gets up, called shots on location are possible allowing easier kills with the right pilot.

All in my video in the first post here.

Missiles also do Stability, SRMs buffed more than LRMs and all Missiles deal better Stability than ACs though PPC is the worst Stability dealer, that is part of what makes Missiles good. 2 Mechs with paired LRM15s (Trebuchet-5N, JagerMech-A, Catapult-C1, Awesome-8T) can knockdown a Mech easy. So can paired Kintaros using nothing but 3SRM6 per Mech.

ACs for some reason have a Refire penalty if shot 2+ turns in a row. All but the AC10 are shown as multi-shot weapons.

Since you do not have the ability to knock Mechs down in MWO through weapon use, your weapons are different.

[Ted Wayz]

Wildstreak, on 10 June 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

Since you do not have the ability to knock Mechs down in MWO through weapon use, your weapons are different.

Used actual physics and math years ago to show that a AC20 could not generate enough force to slow down a locust, much the less knock it over. Keep in mind the people who created BT had no grasp on engineering. Even 1980's engineering nonetheless modern day engineering.

#timeforBTcanonupdate