59 replies to this topic

[UncleKulikov]

It should affect it by movement. If heat is used to target the mech, then it should make it easier since there is a much clearer signal for the missiles to lock onto.

[Ravn]

Yeach, on 12 February 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

This reminds me of MW3 where you needed a minimum speed of 81 kph (or so) so that by moving that fast LRMs COULD miss you entirely.

I never liked that. How do LRMs miss something going 90kph? We can proximity impact jets flying at mach 2 with current tech. It's another timeline and it's a game, but it just doesn't make sense compared to the other technology fielded.

[Convaras Bloodskorn]

Given the variety of methods that the missiles could use to be guided in, as well as the wide range of mechanics that are relatively unknown at this point, I think the best we can come up with is "maybe?"

[nubnub]

Will there be chaff/flares/emp/holograms/smoke? More speculation...

[Sug]

I hope there's shields and bullets loaded with acid that do damage over time and also silver nitrate so we can kill vampires.

[Anvil Dragon]

I just hope somewhat realistic physics get a nod so that each type of missle sees some upper limit on turning rate. Missles turning extreame Gs and hitting you on the far side was just silly. I could see missing missles detonating by proximity for splash damage but a fast enough move should increase the amount of miss and weigh the damage more to one side. That said jumping straight up should just make for an easier target as apposed to moving tangent to the trajectory.

[Ravn]

Don't be ridiculous. Silver nitrate kills warewolves too.

Anvil Dragon, on 13 February 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

I just hope somewhat realistic physics get a nod so that each type of missle sees some upper limit on turning rate. Missles turning extreame Gs and hitting you on the far side was just silly. I could see missing missles detonating by proximity for splash damage but a fast enough move should increase the amount of miss and weigh the damage more to one side. That said jumping straight up should just make for an easier target as apposed to moving tangent to the trajectory.

Mach 2 vs however fast your mech is going will produce negligible differences in proximity distances. I do however agree with g-limits on missiles.

Edited by Ravn, 13 February 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[Omega Strike]

It seems like the machine guns if mounted on on center torso wouldn't need time to converge since convergence lags are caused by weapon pods on arms being brought to bare; though most missiles moved fairly quick and having to make the physics engine track each missile as a hitable target might cause performance problems that aren't worth the payoff.

The point is that missiles are (and I'm sure still will be) a balanced weapon. They don't cycle quickly and have low ammo unless the pilot allots more tonnage to it. The ammo could explode if not equipped with case (which might not have been available in this time period), and I've never felt like the damage done by a single missile barrage was unfairly large.

[MaddMaxx]

Depending on your armor layout tendencies, jumping with incoming missiles seems to have more hit your legs while in the air. If the enemy had lots of missiles, one had best hope one didn't skimp on Leg armor.

[Aegis Kleais]

Sidewinder619, on 04 February 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

I apologise if this has been brought up before but I am curious if a mech with jump can disrupt a missile lock? I am not sure if Streak missiles are available in 3049 but could a pilot possibly break line of sight by jumping and evade incoming salvos?

To me, once you obtain a Direct Fire (DF) Lock by holding your cursor over an enemy, you have a certain amount of time the lock will remain after you move the cursor off before a lock is fired. It should not matter if you're jump jetting or looking an entirely different vector, as long as that tone is playing, firing your missiles should cause them to track.

Also, if you obtain Indirect Fire (IF) Lock at any time, you should be able to just "Fire and Forget", and the missiles should track to the target that someone else has provided Line of Detection for you on.

This is why I hope missiles that gain lock initially fire outward and then turn upward. In case the missiles have to track backwards, you don't want the things turning around and hitting you in the face.

Indirect Fire is going to be a great symbiosis between lower firepower Scouts being able to bring the hurt down on enemies from afar.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

To me, once you obtain a Direct Fire (DF) Lock by holding your cursor over an enemy, you have a certain amount of time the lock will remain after you move the cursor off before a lock is fired. It should not matter if you're jump jetting or looking an entirely different vector, as long as that tone is playing, firing your missiles should cause them to track.

Also, if you obtain Indirect Fire (IF) Lock at any time, you should be able to just "Fire and Forget", and the missiles should track to the target that someone else has provided Line of Detection for you on.

This is why I hope missiles that gain lock initially fire outward and then turn upward. In case the missiles have to track backwards, you don't want the things turning around and hitting you in the face.

Indirect Fire is going to be a great symbiosis between lower firepower Scouts being able to bring the hurt down on enemies from afar.

Sorry, not a fan of the idea you can be looking North and fire Missiles and have them go South. An Indirect link between systems should force you to at least be facing in the GENERAL firing direction.

Besides, it looks stupid for Missiles that do 180 degree turns when 20 meters out of the Launchers.

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 13 February 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Sorry, not a fan of the idea you can be looking North and fire Missiles and have them go South. An Indirect link between systems should force you to at least be facing in the GENERAL firing direction.

Besides, it looks stupid for Missiles that do 180 degree turns when 20 meters out of the Launchers.

Though I'm for things like "having to be in effective range before heating an Indirect Fire Lock tone", I do not support the "Have to be facing the right vector". It wouldn't make sense to get a IF tone when the target was beyond the effective range of the LRM.

Nobody said that missiles pull an ungodly arc immediately as they come out of the housing. They would go out, upward (like normal) and then instead of turning forward to track over terrain, they turn towards the target (in an eventual arc, not immediate) to go track towards the target.

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 13 February 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Though I'm for things like "having to be in effective range before heating an Indirect Fire Lock tone", I do not support the "Have to be facing the right vector". It wouldn't make sense to get a IF tone when the target was beyond the effective range of the LRM.

Nobody said that missiles pull an ungodly arc immediately as they come out of the housing. They would go out, upward (like normal) and then instead of turning forward to track over terrain, they turn towards the target (in an eventual arc, not immediate) to go track towards the target.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that most base model TC's had some base scan radii? As in they pick up signals coming from the forward arcs, be it 90 to 180. Are we to assume that all Mechs ping out with radar at 360 degrees and receive back the same?

Trying to see how a smooth arc would be useful in an Urban setting....

[Sug]

Not entirely sure how real world missiles function but it's probably standard practice to at least try to point them in the general direction of your target.

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 13 February 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Fair enough. I was under the impression that most base model TC's had some base scan radii? As in they pick up signals coming from the forward arcs, be it 90 to 180. Are we to assume that all Mechs ping out with radar at 360 degrees and receive back the same?

Trying to see how a smooth arc would be useful in an Urban setting....

Well, I hadn't initially thought of an arc being a limiting factor in this. But maybe we can amend it thusly?

With DIRECT FIRE locking, you must keep your reticule on the target to maintain tone. If you take the reticule off, you have a short time the lock will maintain before it is lost. HOWEVER, in conjunction with this, if you turn your Mech's forward pointing radar to a direction that is outside it's arc, even before normal tone loss, you will lose the lock immediately.

With INDIRECT FIRE locking, as long as you are in weapon's range, it does not need YOU to keep the target in radar arc (but the spotter DOES need to do so). As long as that is maintained, you will have Indirect Fire.

..........

I wonder if DIRECT FIRE LOCK should always override over INDIRECT FIRE LOCK when you have, essentially, both at the same time. Or if there is a mode you can toggle...

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Well, I hadn't initially thought of an arc being a limiting factor in this. But maybe we can amend it thusly?

With DIRECT FIRE locking, you must keep your reticule on the target to maintain tone. If you take the reticule off, you have a short time the lock will maintain before it is lost. HOWEVER, in conjunction with this, if you turn your Mech's forward pointing radar to a direction that is outside it's arc, even before normal tone loss, you will lose the lock immediately.

With INDIRECT FIRE locking, as long as you are in weapon's range, it does not need YOU to keep the target in radar arc (but the spotter DOES need to do so). As long as that is maintained, you will have Indirect Fire.

..........

I wonder if DIRECT FIRE LOCK should always override over INDIRECT FIRE LOCK when you have, essentially, both at the same time. Or if there is a mode you can toggle...

Yes Direct Lock would be LOS/D dependant and yes before tone, a turn out of arc would end lock on timer.

With Indirect, and I may have it wrong btw, I assumed that your ability to fire on a Target without a LOS/D lock was based on the Lock/TAG signal incoming from the allied Mech. Now if you have to have LOS/D to direct fire (forward arc in place) then to receive the allied Lock signal, that same LOS/D requirement would be in affect, just comes from a different source.

Perhaps you will have to have the Allied signal source within your LOS/D? With Narc, you are scanning for a Signal before being able to engage the unseen enemy target. A 360 arc would be ideal but a bit much to ask for without some advanced Modules perhaps.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 February 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Maybe we're getting wrapped up in the nomenclature?

Traditionally, INDIRECT FIRE means firing a ballistic/projectile in a trajectory without first obtaining Line of Sight. DIRECT FIRE means you fire a ballistic/projectile in a straight(ish) direct path after first obtaining Line of Sight.

I think the problem here is PGI's introduction of the phrase "LOS/D". There is no such thing as a Line of Detection, so what they probably meant was "You either have Line of Sight with the target OR via any myriad of other options, you have active detection of the target. The latter could be obtained by UAV drones, thermal scans or even module-linked target sharing capabilities where you might not have a LOS with the target, but another teammate does.

LOCK is just the term indicating that, if fired, your missiles will track the current target. You could only lock a target that you have LOS/Detection on.

OK. Then we see Indirect fire as a firing method where an Allied unit, or some other form of detection unit (UAV) provides the Signal that the Missiles follow to their target without a LOS Lock?

I guess I am speculating that a Mech does not have 360 degrees of signal detection and even if a UAV sent coordinates of a enemies location, any firing solution would be triangulated (using those coordinates received in order to turn in the relative direction of the target) and then Launch.

I still don't like the idea of Missiles going out and then nicely arcing back from where they came while in flight to target but no worries. We will see soon enough I guess.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 February 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Correct. We agree on what Indirect Fire is. Either you obtain lock (or you attain it via your own tech assistance or ally assistance) and fire at an enemy that you don't necessarily have line of sight on (the primary method of lock attainment)

I like the idea you have that a Mech would NOT have 360 degrees of radar (would be a great module-based upgrade feature too, even if not to the full 360 degrees). So obtaining a lock of your OWN volition and line of sight would require you to bring the reticule onto the target which is both in LOS AND in range of the longest range locking weapon you have.

As for the idea of missiles doubling back, it's just my thoughts on it; some people may not like it. If push came to shove, how about this?

Let's say that you have 180 degrees of radar (the front half of your Mech). All of a sudden, 2 different ally-attained locks that are within range of you but on your six (outside of radar arc range) come to life.

You would have to turn your Mech so that these lock targets ARE in your radar's arc, and by default, whichever lock target you have closer to your reticule is the one the onboard systems believe you want to fire on. That way you can fire as soon as you bring one into your range, but if you wanted to distinguish which lock to act on, you just move your reticule closer to that one, then fire.

The HUD would say "IND" or "DIR" depending on what type of lock you had. ie, if both those locks were in range and in radar arc and active, but you had an enemy in front of you, the HUD would say "IND" meaning that firing right now would go towards the closest lock. But if you manually obtained lock on the enemy you had LOS with, it woudl change to "DIR", meaning firing missiles would target the manual lock you just got. To kill that lock, you merely take your reticule off that target and the lock will decay back to "IND" (if those locks are still available).

Sound good?

I like it. It brings us back your idea of having the ability to override one when both DIR and IND types are present.

I can have LOS and can Lock, but see an IND indicator some 45 degrees to my right, after rotating that 45, I switch to IND mode and pull the trigger. Another switch to DIR and rotate back, Lock and away. Sounds like a FUN game.

[Yeach]

So this is how you two boost your post counts; just endless banter with each other; and off a tangent to boot. I wish I could find someone who posts as late as I do (relatively speaking) to boost my post count.

Now back to being able to dodge missiles by jumping. (okay i was thinking off at a tangent)
I am undecided.
Part of me wants to say yes and that it would require skill to do it.
Part of me says that it would be overpowered where it was necessity (see MW2 and MW3) to mount jumpjets to compete.
If thats the case, I would have to say no you should not be able to.

[MaddMaxx]

Yeach, on 13 February 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

So this is how you two boost your post counts; just endless banter with each other; and off a tangent to boot. I wish I could find someone who posts as late as I do (relatively speaking) to boost my post count.

Now back to being able to dodge missiles by jumping. (okay i was thinking off at a tangent)
I am undecided.
Part of me wants to say yes and that it would require skill to do it.
Part of me says that it would be overpowered where it was necessity (see MW2 and MW3) to mount jumpjets to compete.
If thats the case, I would have to say no you should not be able to.

Dude, don't be such a kill joy. Your wimpy Post count is pretty.. sorta... cool.

Our discussion was simply Tangential to that of the OP.

We were discussing how said Missiles would be delivered to those Jump jeeting fools and how most of them would never even see or hear the Missiles coming.