Jump to content

Remove Minimum Range From Rocket Launchers


25 replies to this topic

Poll: Remove Minimum Range From Rocket Launchers (43 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Rocket Launcher minimum range be removed?

  1. Yes, min. range is not canon and it makes Rockets useless (26 votes [60.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.47%

  2. No, IS is already too powerful (12 votes [27.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.91%

  3. Other opinion (please explain) (5 votes [11.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.63%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 01 February 2019 - 03:09 PM

Source material says no minimum.
But the absuse and troll builds would proliferate.
There should be a trade off.
Because honestly there is a LOT more face hugging than TT.

#22 LDTorroc

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 59 posts

Posted 20 February 2019 - 07:26 AM

I will point this out, Look at the modern rpg-7 or any modern rocket launcher, Each and every one of these have what is known as an arming range. This range is meant to protect the users if something were to go wrong with the warhead so it would not blow up in their own faces.

This range is normaly between 5-10 meters, Now if we take this and upscale it to what mechs are using a 20-50 meter range dosn't sound unfair because of the warheads they are using are a much larger payload then say an rpg-7, atgm, or law payload.

With this being said a min range for rockets and lrms seems logical But. Say we did get rid of the arming range what sould we see? Well that is quite easy to answer, between 0-20 meters both mechs should suffer splash damage from the rockets at full damage, 30-50 we should see splash damage on the launcher but at diminished amounts dependent on how far they are by increments of 10.

As far as lrms are concerned, we should see something similar in this regards, Because even if the warhead isn't armed the force of the rocket alone should still be causing damage even if it is only an amount with could be considered none threatening right off, but ageist a torso with its components exposed it could still be viable threat. But with the lrms being used at lose range we should see something similar between 0-50 meters.

Srms, honestly being able to do move up to an assaults ******* and fire 4-6 srms between 0-30 meters and not having some kind of splash damage seems a little silly

#23 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,870 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 22 February 2019 - 07:51 AM

View PostLDTorroc, on 20 February 2019 - 07:26 AM, said:

I will point this out, Look at the modern rpg-7 or any modern rocket launcher, Each and every one of these have what is known as an arming range. This range is meant to protect the users if something were to go wrong with the warhead so it would not blow up in their own faces.

This range is normaly between 5-10 meters, Now if we take this and upscale it to what mechs are using a 20-50 meter range dosn't sound unfair because of the warheads they are using are a much larger payload then say an rpg-7, atgm, or law payload.

With this being said a min range for rockets and lrms seems logical But. Say we did get rid of the arming range what sould we see? Well that is quite easy to answer, between 0-20 meters both mechs should suffer splash damage from the rockets at full damage, 30-50 we should see splash damage on the launcher but at diminished amounts dependent on how far they are by increments of 10.

As far as lrms are concerned, we should see something similar in this regards, Because even if the warhead isn't armed the force of the rocket alone should still be causing damage even if it is only an amount with could be considered none threatening right off, but ageist a torso with its components exposed it could still be viable threat. But with the lrms being used at lose range we should see something similar between 0-50 meters.

Srms, honestly being able to do move up to an assaults ******* and fire 4-6 srms between 0-30 meters and not having some kind of splash damage seems a little silly
let's not forget shrapnel, especially if you have exposed internals.

#24 Zancross

    Rookie

  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 May 2019 - 11:51 AM

They could remove the minimal range, but in return your 'mech takes damage for being to close. lol

#25 Strength Damage Cliff Racer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 124 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 07:41 AM

I believe that rocket Launchers should have no min range, but I understand the reasoning behind it.
Having no min range enables the RL120+ gameplay which is as frustration-driven as it gets.
95% of time you fail and rage consumes you. To add insult to injury, you need enemy to be dumb nearly as much as you need yourself to be smart with positioning and there is literally no plan b.
5% of time you will succeed. And for enemy it comes out of the blue blue, feeling like nothing he could do to prevent that.
So, 100% of time somebody is raging.
But I don't agree with current place of RLs either. Being single shot and requiring missile hardpoint, they are as slot/tonnage inefficient as it gets. And most IS mechs don't even have that many hardpoints. Slot requirements are harsh as well.
So here is what I suggest: make RLs take same 1 slot (Only weight changes across types) reduce damage by 25%, double the structure damage, crank up ghost heat, then forbid it's use for stealth armor and unbind missile hardpoint requirement. Make it fit whatever offensive (Energy, Missile or Ballistic) hardpoint available. If anything, rocket launchers are nigh-jury-rigged pieces of equipment.
This combined will allow light mechs to have some punch, but will ensure that they won't be totally invisible sneaking up on you furthermore, it will allow quite some mechs to have remotely reliable backup, as well as solving the problem of clan equipment dominating on long and extra long distances by allowing to bruise their faces once mid range achieved.

#26 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,870 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 01 November 2023 - 02:46 PM

I noticed the pirahna was mentioned does the person who brought them up ever pilot one They die almost if sneezed on and their engine requires you to have external heat sinks and genrally only carry extremly light weapons like mgs small lasers and micro.


If rockets get 0 minimium so should ATMs.. otherwise no.

Edited by KursedVixen, 05 November 2023 - 09:15 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users