426 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

Khobai, on 19 February 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

LRM stands for LONG RANGE MISSILES

Youve got it completely backwards

the velocity should start slower then accelerate gradually upto top speed

Making it more difficult for LRMs to hit things at long range does not make them into functional LRMs.

Yes, they ought to accelerate through their flight path. That's how missiles behave when it comes to IRL physics.

Unfortunately I don't think PGI can do that without reworking some of the guts of the engine. Currently missiles just fly out instantaneously at top speed, they don't accelerate up to it.

Fun to think about though.

LRMs could be given an acceleration of 200 meters/sec^2, with a boost phase of 3 seconds, achieving 600 meters/sec before the rocket motor burns out. With that kind of acceleration:
After 1 second, it will have traveled 100 meters.
2 seconds, 400 meters.
2.5 seconds, 625 meters.
3 seconds, 900 meters.
Motor burns out, missile is still capable of flying ballistically, but will be losing speed and its turn rate will be steadily decreasing as well.

But again, that involves modelling real physics, and I doubt PGI will do it.

[Kubernetes]

I would like to see this tried:

Increased velocity (maybe 50%) and flatter trajectory (like ATMs) when fired with own LoS lock.

LoS lock gives tighter spread. Tag should give even tighter spread when used by the missile firer.

Leave IDF crappy and incentivize LRMers to get their own locks.

[Yosharian]

The inability to modify guided missile speed on the fly could be circumvented by having the missile speed dictated roughly by the distance to the target.

So distance to target shorter = burn propellant faster = faster speed

distance to target longer = burn propellant slower = slower speed

I.E. instead of having missiles adapt their speed based on distance travelled, have them adopt a specific speed when they are fired, dictated by the distance to the target.

This would provide the fast speed at shorter ranges that I was suggesting without the need for speed changes in flight, which admittedly now that I think about it, is not a realistic suggestion given MWO's engine.

Khobai, on 19 February 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

LRM stands for LONG RANGE MISSILES

Youve got it completely backwards

the velocity should start slower then accelerate gradually upto top speed

Making it more difficult for LRMs to hit things at long range does not make them into functional LRMs.

Oh no, I suggested something that doesn't entirely fit the way missiles work in real life

this definitely it means it can't be implemented in our game of lumbering, laser-toting 100ton battle mechs that would sink into the dirt instantly if they ever existed in real life

Edited by Yosharian, 19 February 2018 - 10:34 PM.

[Kroete]

Kubernetes, on 19 February 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

I would like to see this tried:

Increased velocity (maybe 50%) and flatter trajectory (like ATMs) when fired with own LoS lock.

LoS lock gives tighter spread. Tag should give even tighter spread when used by the missile firer.

Leave IDF crappy and incentivize LRMers to get their own locks.

Why should someone take lrms instead of atms then?
What purpose do have lrms with your change other then catering your playstyle and giving you a safespace?

As suggested before:
10-20% more speed, double the spread, but 2,25 times spreadreducement for tag, narc, artemis and reverting the artemis/arc nerf and giving all trial mechs ams would do a lot more for balancing them and making them better with direct fire and worse with indirect use.

Edit:
Futher improvements:
Narc should do 1 damage (to get an assist with it),
missiles fired with the use of other narcs, tag should give the spotter around 20% of the damage done with his help.
And make tag invisible and tie bettys missilewarning to a fuctnional ams.

Edited by Kroete, 20 February 2018 - 03:12 AM.

[Mystere]

Kubernetes, on 19 February 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

Leave IDF crappy and incentivize LRMers to get their own locks.

Promote more individualistic behavior in a team-oriented game?

Maybe if the game promoted team-play much more we would have much less statwhores. <shrugs>

[Nema Nabojiv]

Kubernetes, on 19 February 2018 - 10:27 PM, said:

Increased velocity (maybe 50%) and flatter trajectory (like ATMs) when fired with own LoS lock.

LoS lock gives tighter spread. Tag should give even tighter spread when used by the missile firer.

Leave IDF crappy and incentivize LRMers to get their own locks.

That could work a year ago but not now. Now we have ATMs for LoS locked direct fire and MRM for just direct fire.

Even IF lurms get whatever buffs you want them to get, ATMs will remain a better option at up to 500 meters range, the exact range where you can expect to get a steady LoS, purely due to more damage and shorter deadzone up close.

The only way to make lurms viable is to make them perform better at ranges longer than ATM and/or MRM and without stable line of sight.

[Burke IV]

If you kill off IDF because of whatever reasons you will also kill off actually using LRMs in a support role. The excuses for killing LRMs off are weak anyway. Newer players might spam a bit, so what.. I read on here about the radar dep situation aswell and it just comes over like LRMs have been stripped of everything. Just remove them... dont prolong the suffering

[Kubernetes]

Kroete, on 20 February 2018 - 02:52 AM, said:

Why should someone take lrms instead of atms then?

Tonnage, ammo efficiency. Maybe make cLRM fire in single burst like IS and leave stream firing to ATMs.

Quote

What purpose do have lrms with your change other then catering your playstyle and giving you a safespace?

Dunno what you mean. I dislike LRMs for the most part, but I would like to seem them be more effective in a quasi-direct fire role.

Quote

And make tag invisible and tie bettys missilewarning to a fuctnional ams.

I like the invisible tag idea.

[naterist]

Mystere, on 20 February 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

Promote more individualistic behavior in a team-oriented game?

Maybe if the game promoted team-play much more we would have much less statwhores. &lt;shrugs&gt;

I dont think thats the point here. No ones calling for nerfs to tag or narq idf, and thats the only lrm-ing that needs teamwork.
The point is to get people out of the mentality that they can click away from behind a wall 899 meters from the front line and expect to do well, which is the current issue. We are not requesting that ACTUAL teamwork be nerfed, just the piggybackers would get nerfed here.

[ANOM O MECH]

Mystere, on 20 February 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

Promote more individualistic behavior in a team-oriented game?

Maybe if the game promoted team-play much more we would have much less statwhores. <shrugs>

What? 90% of the population is all about quick play.

There is minimal if any teamwork in quick play.

Nothing to do with statwhoring because if folks really wanted better stats they would get them by working as a team much easier.

The idea that this is a team oriented game is a myth and not what actually is happening in the game outside comp and some CW units.

[Mystere]

tker 669, on 20 February 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

What? 90% of the population is all about quick play.

There is minimal if any teamwork in quick play.

Nothing to do with statwhoring because if folks really wanted better stats they would get them by working as a team much easier.

The idea that this is a team oriented game is a myth and not what actually is happening in the game outside comp and some CW units.

And that is my point. The game should be providing big incentives for working as a team (e.g. more rewards for winning, supporting the team, etc.). De-emphasize individual rewards.

Edited by Mystere, 20 February 2018 - 11:02 AM.

[Mystere]

naterist, on 20 February 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

I dont think thats the point here. No ones calling for nerfs to tag or narq idf, and thats the only lrm-ing that needs teamwork.
The point is to get people out of the mentality that they can click away from behind a wall 899 meters from the front line and expect to do well, which is the current issue. We are not requesting that ACTUAL teamwork be nerfed, just the piggybackers would get nerfed here.

Are you sure? People are calling for direct nerfs on IDF to specifically force the player to "get their own locks". How is that not "nerfing" teamwork?

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 20 February 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

Are you sure? People are calling for direct nerfs on IDF to specifically force the player to "get their own locks". How is that not "nerfing" teamwork?

Buff direct fire, make IDF require teamwork via TAG/NARC.

Can easily make a place for LRMs.

[Brain Cancer]

naterist, on 20 February 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

I dont think thats the point here. No ones calling for nerfs to tag or narq idf, and thats the only lrm-ing that needs teamwork.
The point is to get people out of the mentality that they can click away from behind a wall 899 meters from the front line and expect to do well, which is the current issue. We are not requesting that ACTUAL teamwork be nerfed, just the piggybackers would get nerfed here.

Nothing will change that, because it's not the weapon, it's the pilots.

These are the same people who barely peek out from 800m+ with ERLLs and think they're doing real damage because the crosshair turned red. Sprinkling missiles on your target is generally the same way,

I mean, we're talking a weapon whose largest version is so weak, it's not really noticed much unless you at least take two, maybe even three or four.

[Gorgo7]

250 m/s please.

[Asym]

Gosh, this topic is worn me out....... MODERATORS: Please close it, it's getting painful to read.

[Burke IV]

Mystere, on 20 February 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

Are you sure? People are calling for direct nerfs on IDF to specifically force the player to "get their own locks". How is that not "nerfing" teamwork?

Getting your own locks... who cares. Only thing you do by taking away IDF is punish the guy asking for support. That assult mech that was too slow and is now getting klilled, you can save them with IDF. If not kill the attacker then drive them off.

Thats probably the best thing about LRMs.

[OmniFail]

MischiefSC, on 20 February 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

Buff direct fire, make IDF require teamwork via TAG/NARC.

Can easily make a place for LRMs.

This comes from a "Get your own locks" share armor guy. His suggestion is that other players always give up tonnage to support LRMs

It's all so crazy

[MischiefSC]

OmniFail, on 20 February 2018 - 01:57 PM, said:

This comes from a "Get your own locks" share armor guy. His suggestion is that other players always give up tonnage to support LRMs

It's all so crazy

No, my suggestion is make LRMs a useful weapon alongside everything else as a direct fire weapon that can also do IDF as part of a teamwork scenario where someone has TAG/NARC.

Because, as stated and explained before, IDF is by and large a **** mechanic.

You've already made it clear that you consider 'sharing armor' and teamwork to be a myth, which is why people struggle to take anything you have to say seriously.

[OmniFail]

MischiefSC, on 20 February 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

No, my suggestion is make LRMs a useful weapon alongside everything else as a direct fire weapon that can also do IDF as part of a teamwork scenario where someone has TAG/NARC.

Because, as stated and explained before, IDF is by and large a **** mechanic.

You've already made it clear that you consider 'sharing armor' and teamwork to be a myth, which is why people struggle to take anything you have to say seriously.

It is futuristic combat indirect fire is a very real mechanic and has been since WWII. If you can't handle the concept of hard counters and breaking line of sight maybe MWO is not the game for you.

You do not send destroyers to sink a carrier group. You collect intelligence and then you send missiles.

Second two soldiers on a battlefield are not sharing armor. They are trying not to get shot. They can however move together and focus fire.

Edited by OmniFail, 20 February 2018 - 03:14 PM.