35 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

I would say that the problem with LRMs at long ranges is that there's so much time in between that it's plently of time to get to cover, and counter it. But what if LRMs have a fixed time in reaching a target?

Whether you are 180m, or 900m, the missiles ALWAYS lands within 2.5s or 3.0s? Or you know, it has a starting velocity of 72 m/s, accelerating up to 360m/s as it reaches 900m. How i achieved that duration is the time it takes for LRM without velocity quirk to land at 400m with 160m/s velocity, but other values may be applied.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 29 September 2017 - 03:05 AM.

[Kroete]

Then we would need umus ...

10% more velocity and tieing the missilewarning to a working ams (need ams, ammo and not turned off) would be enough as a first and maybe last step.

Edited by Kroete, 29 September 2017 - 03:13 AM.

[Verilligo]

Not really sure this is the fix that LRMs need because the problem as I see it is that they simply don't do meaningful damage due to spreading across a mech. But any attempted fix is better than doing nothing at all, so I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Curccu]

The6thMessenger, on 29 September 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

I would say that the problem with LRMs at long ranges is that there's so much time in between that it's plently of time to get to cover, and counter it. But what if LRMs have a fixed time in reaching a target?

Whether you are 180m, or 900m, the missiles ALWAYS lands within 2.5s or 3.0s? Or you know, it has a starting velocity of 72 m/s, accelerating up to 360m/s as it reaches 900m. How i achieved that duration is the time it takes for LRM without velocity quirk to land at 400m with 160m/s velocity, but other values may be applied.

So further away you shoot them more useless AMS becomes? not going to do much against some LRM40 salvo that is flying 360m/s

[Asym]

with respect, No.

[RoadblockXL]

So, if you shoot LRMs at a mech 1000 meters away, they zip right to the target and if you shoot LRMs at a mech 180 meters away, they practically hover?

That would be incredibly silly.

[Rovertoo]

Mm, might seem a bit weird. Having them accelerate over range might be okay though. But I feel LRMs are in an okay spot right now, not too crazy powerful. I still get killed by LRMs once in a while (or at least heavily damaged) and like to have at least an LRM 5 or 10 on my mechs for the added utility.

[Lightfoot]

I don't think it would ever happen. The number of remove LRMs from the game threads is sometimes ridiculous. What they could do is have Artemis FCS lower the flight path of missiles if a locked target is within LoS (line of sight). Artemis works by infrared laser beam marking of targets so the missiles would project over a more direct path if MWO were to really simulate Artemis.

The other thing I would like is radar tracking of LRMs like we had in MechWarrior 3. Very helpful and there would probably be a lot less LRM=OP whines.

Me, myself, I gave up on MWO ever fielding BattleTech value LRMs. They stink if you have just one or two launchers. MWO balances LRMs based on the biggest LRM boats. Perhaps they should balance them on one or two being carried and after that the accuracy drops off?

[JediPanther]

Lrms already have 36 hard and soft counters. I know. I made the thread that took count of them. They don't need a lame fixed speed to target being they are one of the slowest projectiles in the game. Most lrm spread wide across targets that nearly any ppfd weapon from micro laser to h guass is far better at damaging and killing a target.

T5-t4 just need to learn to use the counters. Higher tiers see less and less lrm use as people know and do counter them to the point you hardly ever se and ams or lams. What you do see is lots of ecm mechs,laser vomit and daka builds.

[Felicitatem Parco]

You want PROGRESSIVE ACCELERATION

Progressive acceleration will cause missiles to continually accelerate, thereby helping to normalize flight duration across targets of various distances.

It can take 1 unit of time to reach a nearby target, 1.66 units if time to reach one twice as far away, and only 2 units of time to reach one 3 times far away if a missile continually accelerates during flight.

[Novakaine]

The only thing PGI needs to fix is the damage potential and the spread.

[RestosIII]

Honestly, I'd been hoping for gradually increasing velocities for ATMs. Completely locked flight times though would be weird.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Some velocity boosts would be nice, LRMs don't even need to be any worse up close than they are already, just give the things some straight buffs instead of this "all buffs must have some negative" gimmick.

[Willard Phule]

Personally, since PGI has shown us they have the ability to program a "toggle" (ams on or off) and that they can manipulate trajectories (ATMs have a lower trajectory than LRMs), I'd rather see a "direct/indirect" toggle for fire mode on them.

Indirect would have a higher arc, direct would be more in line with what you see with the ATMs currently.

Now, granted, LRMs are the preferred weapon of the average potato...er....new player...and being able to determine which one is best would probably slow their progression to T1 by about a week or so, but still....I think it would definitely change how they're used.

[Skipmagnet]

I would kill for an arc indicator that we could adjust before firing.

[qS Sachiel]

What are you trying to scchieve? If simply to reduce a players ability to mitigate damage by taking cover and reward firing at maximum range, why?

My experience from games like dcs:a10c is that missiles like AGM take an upward launch trajectory against acquired tsrgets at longer range, but the range band is fixed an preprogrammed possibly against altitude also, and I thought that they do this primarily to increase angle of attack for more accurate target hit, given that the booster will have burned out log ago and it will require gravity to assist in target hit rather than a more horizontal momentum against short range tsrgets.

Mwo has missiles under constant powered flight so I guess it make sense they're constantly accelerating, but the basis for having fixed TOF makes no sense to me here. If anything it should make it more likely missiles miss if they are constantly accelerating against a (fast) moving target

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

qS Sachiel, on 29 September 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

My experience from games like dcs:a10c is that missiles like AGM take an upward launch trajectory against acquired tsrgets at longer range, but the range band is fixed an preprogrammed possibly against altitude also, and I thought that they do this primarily to increase angle of attack for more accurate target hit, given that the booster will have burned out log ago and it will require gravity to assist in target hit rather than a more horizontal momentum against short range tsrgets.

The reason AGMs take an upward launch trajectory and then fall down onto their target is so that they are more likely to hit the thinner and more easy to penetrate roof armor of a vehicle.

[Mole]

qS Sachiel, on 29 September 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

What are you trying to scchieve? If simply to reduce a players ability to mitigate damage by taking cover and reward firing at maximum range, why?

My experience from games like dcs:a10c is that missiles like AGM take an upward launch trajectory against acquired tsrgets at longer range, but the range band is fixed an preprogrammed possibly against altitude also, and I thought that they do this primarily to increase angle of attack for more accurate target hit, given that the booster will have burned out log ago and it will require gravity to assist in target hit rather than a more horizontal momentum against short range tsrgets.

Mwo has missiles under constant powered flight so I guess it make sense they're constantly accelerating, but the basis for having fixed TOF makes no sense to me here. If anything it should make it more likely missiles miss if they are constantly accelerating against a (fast) moving target

I think his reasoning is in the moniker of the weapon system itself. "LONG RANGE" Missiles. Guess where LRMs are worthless in MWO? Yup. Long range. I think the OP probably feels like it's ridiculous a weapon that is supposed to be long range is only truly usable at medium ranges and wishes to remedy that.

[Lightfoot]

Lower the trajectory of LRMs with Artemis and line of sight. I mean why do you need line of sight with Artemis? Because Artemis is an infrared laser targeting system, so that means they no longer have to arc high into the air since the path to the target is confirmed to be clear.





.

Edited by Lightfoot, 30 September 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

RoadblockXL, on 29 September 2017 - 08:10 AM, said:

So, if you shoot LRMs at a mech 1000 meters away, they zip right to the target and if you shoot LRMs at a mech 180 meters away, they practically hover?

That would be incredibly silly.

I would approach the same logic to fix it. That AMS would ALWAYS down a set of missiles per given volley, excluding streams. I would extend the range of AMS to infinite, then adjust DPS -- after all the time of contact would be definite 2.5 - 3.0s so the damage done would be also definite, and to an extent would have a definite amount of missiles downed.

Say the AMS would ALWAYS down 4 missiles off an LRM volley, assuming that it's not stream.

Of course other missile weapons would need adjusting too.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 30 September 2017 - 02:49 AM.