38 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

I've thrown this idea before, but in the feature suggestions. I'd like a discussion right now instead.

What do you think of Proximity-Tracking? It is basically a range where incoming missiles home to targets automatically. It's basically a sphere of influence on mechs that attracts missiles.

This means that if the target broke lock from the LRM-Launcher, the incoming LRMs that happen to pass by n-amount of meters would no longer-need active missile-lock and land on the target anyways. This isn't just restricted to LRMs and ATMs, but should also work with SRMs.

This makes homing-weapons that need lock a bit better when shooting dumb-fired at close-range, and we can increase the spread of missiles without having to completely making them completely ineffective. We can have something like the LRMs saturating an area, but ultimately efficient because even if you didn't hit all LRMs on one-target, you at least delivered the damage onto other mechs as well.

The SRMs, as opposed of basically just a light-weight shotgun, it's a spread-weapon that has a reliable hit-rate when you double or triple the spread, you can consistently hit small lights but you'd only be dealing small damage. If you want a component-focusing weapon, use LBXs and ACs.

Here's a starting Proximity-Tracking Rules:

- 40m for Lights
- 60m for Mediums
- 80m for Heavies
- 100m for Assaults
- Proximity-Tracking is ineffective against stealth-armor.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 January 2019 - 10:42 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

The6thMessenger, on 17 January 2019 - 10:21 PM, said:

I've thrown this idea before, but in the feature suggestions. I'd like a discussion right now instead.

What do you think of Proximity-Tracking? It is basically a range where incoming missiles home to targets automatically. It's basically a sphere of influence on mechs that attracts missiles.

This means that if the target broke lock from the LRM-Launcher, the incoming LRMs that happen to pass by n-amount of meters would no longer-need active missile-lock and land on the target anyways. This isn't just restricted to LRMs and ATMs, but should also work with SRMs.

This makes homing-weapons that need lock a bit better when shooting dumb-fired at close-range, and we can increase the spread of missiles without having to completely making them completely ineffective. We can have something like the LRMs saturating an area, but ultimately efficient because even if you didn't hit all LRMs on one-target, you at least delivered the damage onto other mechs as well.

The SRMs, as opposed of basically just a light-weight shotgun, it's a spread-weapon that has a reliable hit-rate when you double or triple the spread, you can consistently hit small lights but you'd only be dealing small damage. If you want a component-focusing weapon, use LBXs and ACs.

Here's a starting Proximity-Tracking Rules:

- 40m for Lights
- 60m for Mediums
- 80m for Heavies
- 100m for Assaults
- Proximity-Tracking is ineffective against stealth-armor.

I could see this being a feature for NARC, but not as a base level ability for missiles. Maybe SRMs if you reduce damage or velocity.

[Prototelis]

So you want double auto-aim?

I'll pass.

[GeminiWolf]

How about a big whopping helping of No

[Vellron2005]

The6thMessenger, on 17 January 2019 - 10:21 PM, said:

I've thrown this idea before, but in the feature suggestions. I'd like a discussion right now instead.

What do you think of Proximity-Tracking? It is basically a range where incoming missiles home to targets automatically. It's basically a sphere of influence on mechs that attracts missiles.

This means that if the target broke lock from the LRM-Launcher, the incoming LRMs that happen to pass by n-amount of meters would no longer-need active missile-lock and land on the target anyways. This isn't just restricted to LRMs and ATMs, but should also work with SRMs.

This makes homing-weapons that need lock a bit better when shooting dumb-fired at close-range, and we can increase the spread of missiles without having to completely making them completely ineffective. We can have something like the LRMs saturating an area, but ultimately efficient because even if you didn't hit all LRMs on one-target, you at least delivered the damage onto other mechs as well.

The SRMs, as opposed of basically just a light-weight shotgun, it's a spread-weapon that has a reliable hit-rate when you double or triple the spread, you can consistently hit small lights but you'd only be dealing small damage. If you want a component-focusing weapon, use LBXs and ACs.

Here's a starting Proximity-Tracking Rules:

- 40m for Lights
- 60m for Mediums
- 80m for Heavies
- 100m for Assaults
- Proximity-Tracking is ineffective against stealth-armor.

I can immediately imagine the rain of tears that would ensue when people would just start lobbing LRMs randomly without lock, hoping to get hits like you describe.. it sounds kinda OP..

but, I do propose a different idea..

Why not, when you lock, fire, and then loose lock, we could lock a different target, and have the missiles in-flight head to that target instead? We can already re-lock and have the missiles hit the original target.. why not a different target?

Also, if you dumbfire, and then lock while missiles in flight, they should head for that target, instead of being wasted..

[The6thMessenger]

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2019 - 01:00 AM, said:

I can immediately imagine the rain of tears that would ensue when people would just start lobbing LRMs randomly without lock, hoping to get hits like you describe.. it sounds kinda OP..

That is just basically chip-damage, and with 100m diameter sphere of influence, it's quite a luck to land them. And if anything, you'd need to have a look to shoot at the area, turning it an area-denial weapon, making it an actual Artillery.

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2019 - 01:00 AM, said:

Why not, when you lock, fire, and then loose lock, we could lock a different target, and have the missiles in-flight head to that target instead? We can already re-lock and have the missiles hit the original target.. why not a different target?

Because it was meant to be a catch-all system that works with SRMs, and less about LRMs.

[HammerMaster]

In a battlefield clear of EW and ECM/ECCM you could.
But it's stated many times that so much EW chatter causes what we find normal to be outright defeated requiring the quirky mech weapons we use for reference.
Also.
No. There is already enough missle cry.

[Verilligo]

Vellron2005, on 18 January 2019 - 01:00 AM, said:

I can immediately imagine the rain of tears that would ensue when people would just start lobbing LRMs randomly without lock, hoping to get hits like you describe.. it sounds kinda OP..

but, I do propose a different idea..

Why not, when you lock, fire, and then loose lock, we could lock a different target, and have the missiles in-flight head to that target instead? We can already re-lock and have the missiles hit the original target.. why not a different target?

Also, if you dumbfire, and then lock while missiles in flight, they should head for that target, instead of being wasted..

The trouble with this idea is that it allows you to fire missiles over cover, have them curve back around, and shoot someone in the back without them being able to avoid it. Cover would become substantially less useful because you could fire out missiles to a point where someone can't put something between them and the missiles. You would have to drastically limit the angle that missiles could turn or some other nerf to prevent them from being used as ranged DPS that cores people out from the rear when they're exposing their front. Even then, while the idea logically makes sense, it's rife with potential for abuse.

[Antares102]

If PPCs get a 5° aimbot ability you get your additional homing LRM.

[The6thMessenger]

Verilligo, on 18 January 2019 - 05:48 AM, said:

The trouble with this idea is that it allows you to fire missiles over cover, have them curve back around, and shoot someone in the back without them being able to avoid it. Cover would become substantially less useful because you could fire out missiles to a point where someone can't put something between them and the missiles. You would have to drastically limit the angle that missiles could turn or some other nerf to prevent them from being used as ranged DPS that cores people out from the rear when they're exposing their front. Even then, while the idea logically makes sense, it's rife with potential for abuse.

Yes. Thank you.

Could we have more answers like this?

[El Bandito]

I thought lorewise Narc beacon allowed that to all missiles, even SRMs?

[HammerMaster]

El Bandito, on 18 January 2019 - 07:26 AM, said:

I thought lorewise Narc beacon allowed that to all missiles, even SRMs?

Well. No.
And yes.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Nemesis_Pod
And then the question is if it is all missle or just the tag/narc/homing capable ones.
(Those cost more c-bills!)

[WhineyThePoo]

No

[AncientRaig]

Seeing as SRMs are supposed to be guided missiles, I could see this. The range shouldn't be very large, maybe a few meters to each side of the mech, but some degree of self-guidance would be nice to see.

Verilligo, on 18 January 2019 - 05:48 AM, said:

The trouble with this idea is that it allows you to fire missiles over cover, have them curve back around, and shoot someone in the back without them being able to avoid it. Cover would become substantially less useful because you could fire out missiles to a point where someone can't put something between them and the missiles. You would have to drastically limit the angle that missiles could turn or some other nerf to prevent them from being used as ranged DPS that cores people out from the rear when they're exposing their front. Even then, while the idea logically makes sense, it's rife with potential for abuse.

On the other hand, there's an easy fix to that. Run an AMS. If cover is no long an instant "no u" button to LRM boats, bringing the actual hard counter to missiles seems like a no brainer. Even with just a a third of the team running AMS you'd have a decent defense.

Limiting the arc of turning also makes sense. A missile that has flown past by a mech won't have the agility to turn 180 degrees and come back in from behind it. Make it so that a missile can only acquire and track a target in front of it or to the immediate side of the front of the warhead, and it would probably be rather balanced.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Prototelis, on 17 January 2019 - 11:13 PM, said:

So you want double auto-aim?

I'll pass.

Yeah, I agree here. This would be the ultimate fail. I mean I could load up on LRMs, sit back 1000m and just point in the general direction of the enemy and have my missiles auto-target any enemy that happens to be out in the open. That is the ultimate in "NO SKILL" gameplay.

The honest truth is that any failure of the missiles in this game is a failure of the player, not the system. For example, most LRMers would be totally shocked at their damage output if they could figure out that LRMs are much more effective if your LOS to the enemy. They might even be shocked if they could figure out that mounting a few energy weapons and fighting close enough to actually use them also has a dramatic effect on your damage output. Alais, far too many missile users don't operate this way.

[TELEFORCE]

I believe the OP wants Swarm LRM ammunition. It locks on to a primary target, but any missiles that miss that target will attempt to hit other targets in a 30 or 45-meter radius.

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Swarm_LRM

It was originally developed as a substitute for artillery strikes.

Edited by TELEFORCE, 18 January 2019 - 10:48 AM.

[Verilligo]

AncientRaig, on 18 January 2019 - 08:48 AM, said:

Seeing as SRMs are supposed to be guided missiles, I could see this. The range shouldn't be very large, maybe a few meters to each side of the mech, but some degree of self-guidance would be nice to see.

At which point Streaks lose all meaningful differentiation from standard SRMs, apart from being heavier and having a longer range on the Clan variation. Technically SRMs are "self-guided," but the practical effect is that, with that velocity and at that range, any level of guidance essentially makes the missiles foolproof. You might very well have to decrease the damage on SRMs, which is going to impact brawling mechs super heavily.

Quote

On the other hand, there's an easy fix to that. Run an AMS. If cover is no long an instant "no u" button to LRM boats, bringing the actual hard counter to missiles seems like a no brainer. Even with just a a third of the team running AMS you'd have a decent defense.

AMS is not a hard counter to LRMs. Even triple AMS is not a hard counter to LRMs. Now AMS does tamp down LRM damage to a considerable degree, but it's not designed to nullify them as much as it's designed to help give breathing space to deal with the threat. If four players were running AMS, then yes, that would pretty heavily counter an enemy mech with LRMs... but you can't count on that to happen in QP.

Quote

Limiting the arc of turning also makes sense. A missile that has flown past by a mech won't have the agility to turn 180 degrees and come back in from behind it. Make it so that a missile can only acquire and track a target in front of it or to the immediate side of the front of the warhead, and it would probably be rather balanced.

It wouldn't be quite as much of a balance change, for certain, but there are still opportunities for abuse. You could still possibly curve it around corners, or home missiles in on someone and only give them a half a second missile incoming warning. I don't know, you'd have to test it out fairly rigorously in order to tune it, but you might be able to make it work out.

[HammerMaster]

Verilligo, on 18 January 2019 - 10:50 AM, said:

AMS is not a hard counter to LRMs. Even triple AMS is not a hard counter to LRMs.

Um what!
Maybe not to a POS aberration like lrm80 supernova.
You take a REASONABLE build like 2xALRM15 catapult yes. ITS A HARD COUNTER.
because of the cry and arms race of more more MOAR tubes vs ams efficacy.
A regular rig can't get a leg up.
NOT A HARD COUNTER INDEED.

Edited by HammerMaster, 18 January 2019 - 04:18 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Are people having a hard enough time hitting things with SRMs that they even need something like this?

[The6thMessenger]

Y E O N N E, on 18 January 2019 - 10:02 PM, said:

Are people having a hard enough time hitting things with SRMs that they even need something like this?

I honestly don't have the data on that.

But I think it would be a better system to differentiate between LBXs.