13 replies to this topic

[IIXxXII]

Different types of artillery and air strikes. Good idea / bad idea?

In practice, there could be incendiary artillery / air strikes which would disgorge sticky burning foam lighting mechs within a target radius on fire(similar effect to flamers), decreasing their ability to dissipate heat through heatsinks for a limited time.

There could be smoke screen artillery / air strikes which would shroud an area in smoke obscuring visibility. This would necessitate a transition to heat vision. But could have the potential to take people by surprise to gain a slight tactical advantage.

ECM artillery / air strike. Instead of a warhead, an electronic blanket jamming device would be dropped in a targeted area, scrambling sensors making it impossible to acquire a radar lock. A scenario for this might be if there's a lance of lrm boats, ECM arty could be dropped to make it impossible for them to acquire locks for 30 seconds (however long the ecm beacon lasts).

It is possible these proposals would *overcomplicate* things needlessly & pointlessly rather than add to depth of gameplay--which is typically the end goal.

WWJD?

[Squirg]

Personally I hate consumable arty / airstrikes and want a complete overhaul of their use.

That being said this idea was kicked around a few years ago iirc. I'm not opposed to the idea, just want a different implementation other than a consumable.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

No more consumables until they require tonnage and crits in order to use. The ones we have already go too far.

[Prototelis]

Definitely want more consumables.

Like some mines would be pretty cool.

[El Bandito]

I like different types of strikes, but I want them to have real costs in terms of tonnage/slots, not just C-Bills.

[lazorbeamz]

I hate consumable and arti. Arti punishes you for nothing often you dont even see it coming. The person using arti on you has more CBills and doesnt need any skill whatosever just randomly push that button and roll face on their keyboards.

[LowSubmarino]

I like strikes.

They heavily punish clumped up formations and completly unaware players.

Ppl refuse to not completly clump up though. They do it every match. And get hammered by strikes over and over again.

Strikes are a good way for ppl to learn to play differently.

Stop nerfing everything in mwo. Gauss, lasers, ppcs, lrms, strikes......

Jesus.

In a mech battle there would be bombardment from aircrafts and artilery.

Dont take out strikes.

[JC Daxion]

I load up 1 each.. the reason is because Art is great planting right behind someone. with the new timers if they see smoke even an assault can move out of the way.

Personally i think all mechs should be able load up 8 consumables, then you use the skill tree to unlock more uses of them.. (no you should not be able to use all 8 in a single match.. i think it should cap at 3 or 4, I think it would add a little more flexibility/strategy to their use.

lazorbeamz, on 29 May 2018 - 12:39 AM, said:

I hate consumable and arti. Arti punishes you for nothing often you dont even see it coming. The person using arti on you has more CBills and doesnt need any skill whatosever just randomly push that button and roll face on their keyboards.

Wrong,, strikes punish you for camping..

as for skill your clicking a button.. how exactly is firing a laser take more skill than a strike? Strikes take far more skill to use than any laser for sure.

[Asym]

El Bandito, on 28 May 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I like different types of strikes, but I want them to have real costs in terms of tonnage/slots, not just C-Bills.

I am with the "they must have a cost crowd" as well. BUT.....if they do have a cost, they must be damage proportional to those costs...

Take an artillery strike that costs a ton or more in a Targeting Computer: the TC1 is 1 ton and you get an average artillery strike or a Artillery strike that is a smoke screen. A TC2 get a more accurate and longer artillery strike and more uses of them (HE, Smoke and ECM).. A TC3 is unannounced and has no smoke or any warning, has ammunition choices (HE, smoke, ECM or DPICM), has more range and more uses. TC 4 is even more dangerous: all of the above plus scatterable mines. TAG's and NARC's increase accuracy and effectiveness.

Here's the kicker: without a TAG, dispersion in 50% higher no matter the TC used.

Air strikes I would require the same thing and a required TC1 and TAG... An Air Strike without a TAG would be as it is today. With a TAG and a TC1, they would take longer to activate but would be seriously more effective. They would be a lot like a Gauss charge: where once you activate the strike, you only have 1 minute to use it or the AC aborts...... If used, you'd get HE or DPICM only and they come only in one variety and one size.

Here's the kicker: The TAG's for Air Strikes are used to mark the IP and azimuth of the strike.

We are want the game to "more than it can be" and a lot of people hate missiles and strikes as no skill..... So, let's give them some skill in their use and make them serious combat multipliers and let's see who can or can not use in-direct fire as a skilled weapon..... I can gar-un-tee you, if enacted for real, what I have suggested would seriously change the way team play is conducted; for the better in my opinion.

PS: I seriously change AMS as well because they have no skill requirements. AMS would require ARTEMIS and weights would be increased by .5 tons for components. All skill nodes would be required for "effective" defensive fire and they would require a "cool down" period..... AMS's could be individually targeted as well to the missile mechs launching at the mech if target locked. That way, a 3 AMS's Kit Fox could cycle 1,2 or 3 AMS's and not burnout the AMS's, say on Polar. Or, you could focus your AMS's to protect against a SNV-A that's locked you close......

Just ideas to make "no skill" weapons have some required input to make them effectively work and when they work, because of "skill of use", well, you get rewarded proportionally.

PPS: JC you are right as well....but,that is another entire argument.

Edited by Asym, 29 May 2018 - 06:16 AM.

[Prototelis]

El Bandito, on 28 May 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I like different types of strikes, but I want them to have real costs in terms of tonnage/slots, not just C-Bills.

So only larger mechs can carry them?

That kind of seems like it would be giving light mechs the shaft

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 28 May 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

I like different types of strikes, but I want them to have real costs in terms of tonnage/slots, not just C-Bills.

Personally I like the idea of air strikes requiring TAG to guide them in, while artillery needs a command console and you have to use the actual map to place the strike.

[Asym]

Prototelis, on 29 May 2018 - 08:14 AM, said:

So only larger mechs can carry them?

That kind of seems like it would be giving light mechs the shaft

No. Only the equipment necessary to use them with accuracy......

There is a "cost" in tonnage to mount TC's, command counsels, TAG's, etc.... Or, whatever PGI decides will work to control them.

Edited by Asym, 29 May 2018 - 11:46 AM.

[Khobai]

we need no types

not more types

[Shadowomega1]

Just add in IR chaff smoke shells to help cover choke points for mechs to pass, and maybe Arrow IV strikes that can be "Dumb" fired at a point or Guided to the target if a TAG is used.

As for changes to current strikes, buff them by having a HUD indicator for ally strikes that show direction/radius/range of the strike. While also nerfing them by giving any enemy with an Active Probe/Command Console the same warning. Furthermore making the jet for the Airstrike visible on radar and destroyable, just be aware of the debrie.