196 replies to this topic

[Fresh Meat]

We will be seeing allot of knife fights. They are in my opinion making a mistake by limiting LRMs to 640m. You cant fire them within 200m so you have a weapon only effective from 200-640m and is partially dependent on scouts to function well. Why would anyone want a mech so specialized and vulnerable? The scout/support roles should serve to keep the battlefield dynamic and interesting. However I feel that the system is so under powered by the range deficit that we will only have direct fire shootouts, and with the extreme landscapes they have designed mostly short ranged weapons.

I realize that the range come directly from TT. However, the range of LRMs has always been greater in Mechwarrior games, around 1000m. Does this not seem too literal a translation, should the range be extended to foster more effective spotting for scouts?

The angle of LRM approach could be adjusted to control for excessive boating from range. For example in the video the missiles hit the taget from above, I suggest that at longer range the missile begin a more horizontal approach thereby giving the target a better chance to avoid getting hit by placing more objects in the flight path. This way support mechs would be compelled not to hide as their combat effectiveness would suffer.

Edited by Fresh_Meat, 08 May 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[William Petersen]

The last TT game I played against a Longbow was pretty frustrating, he pretty much ripped one of my mechs apart before I even closed the gap with his dual LRM-20s. He also was throwing down mines with his LRM-5s to befuddle my approach (it only kinda half-worked, really). I know mines all but certainly won't be an option, but still. Don't underestimate the power of support mechs. If the damage on the LRMs is tuned correctly, and the pilot positions himself well, they can be devastating.

[Pale Rider 010]

While I personally hope for considerably longer ranges on the long range missiles, it has been said that the DEv's are going to try to port TT values over as best they can. However it has also been said that the TT range of LRMs was limited so that game maps wouldn't take up the whole room. Personally I would like to see LRM ranges of 1500-2000m or more. It has long range in the title, it should have long range.

An M-16 rifle has an effective range on a point target of about 550 meters. On an area target, that increases to about 800 meters. That means an M-16 rifle of today would be able to reliably strike something the size of a mech at longer ranges than a long range missile by TT values. That's just wrong.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Well since we are going to be deploying in lances, teamwork could be the answer here. You could hang back to lay down LRM fire while your lancemate's with shorter range weapons close with your opponents. Enemies might not be so quick to break and head for you to get in close if you got a teammate in a Hunchback in their face waiting to get a shot at their back with that AC/20.

[neodym]

wait,LRM minimum range? no weapon should have minimum range,I didnt had minimum range in MW2,MW3 or MW4.... theres no logic in blocking LRM from firing just becose target is 199m away..... I honestly think you should fire any weapon any time,even LRM without lock on.... like theres no racional logic like "you know,the antimatter in the warheads suck ongoing tachyions into polaron singularity so you cant fire it under 200m"

[John Clavell]

PPC and LRM's have a minimum range. You can still fire them. The PPC requires you to turn the safety off. There is a chance for feedback. With LRM's the missile warheads take time to arm in flight. 200m is the min. You can still fire them in Battletech, but there is a good chance many of the warheads wont arm in time. Having the minimum ranges is good, it forces these mech which use PPC or LRMs to consider using other weapon systems to cover themselves in close combat.

We'll see how the LRM max range pans out. I believe PGI wanted to pull ranges closer, over MW4 which was very much a sniper fest for the most part. I'm open to longer ranges personally. But Beta testing should give them good feedback about the LRM max range.

[EDMW CSN]

Think of it as an arming distance. Besides you got 4 medium lasers on a catapult.

[William Petersen]

Pale Rider 010, on 08 May 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

However it has also been said that the TT range of LRMs was limited so that game maps wouldn't take up the whole room. Personally I would like to see LRM ranges of 1500-2000m or more. It has long range in the title, it should have long range.

Not just LRMs, but all weapons systems...

Also, LRMs are long ranged. Relative to other weapons systems. The only thing that out-ranges them in Tech 1 is the AC/2.

Gauss shoots 30m farther (than LRMs), and ERPPCs shoot 30m farther than that. LB-5X matches them, and of course the UAC/2 and the LB-2X shoots farther even than their lower-tech counter part (not that most people would ever consider using AC/2s of any form).

[EDMW]CSN, on 08 May 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Besides you got 4 medium lasers on a catapult.

So does a Jenner. =P

[THELONGSHANKS]

[EDMW]CSN, on 08 May 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Think of it as an arming distance. Besides you got 4 medium lasers on a catapult.

Nothing to squawk at. Although I would like to see slightly longer ranges for indirect fire weapons.

[pursang]

Alright say it with me guys: "It's a game that isn't even done yet, things are subject to change!"

Now you may unclench your buttocks.

[Sleipnir]

Personally I'm all for bringing the ranges down.

From the videos it seems that the missles travel very quickly compared to in previous games. Plus, keeping in mind that they lock on, and you can get a lock through your teammates, not even having to directly see the enemy yourself at all- I'd say that more than balances them.

MW4 and MWLL have shown that really long range LRM's just cause boating fests and this is really not enjoyable gameplay by anyone's definition.

[warner2]

I think what's clear is that Piranha would want all weapons to be useful, which pretty much maps onto battles taking place at a variety of ranges. If not, battles will take place at one range, and some weapons would not be used. Now 640 seems short for me too but it's impossible to say without many organised battles between organised teams, in other words, a beta. So fret not, if the balance is out, things will get addressed, presumably, hopefully, to create balanced and varied game play, with all weapons useful under the right circumstances.

Edited by warner__, 08 May 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

+1 for increasing the ranges of every weapon
for example increasing by 60% will result in LRMs ranging 1000m while a medium laser is still able to hit anything at ranges to 450m
would become harder for light rush mechs to close the gap between the effective range of a LRM artillery mech and their short range direct energy weapons.

total other idea to have two mods for missile weapons: indirect via spotter based on the different ranges of trajectory even a SRM should be able to have a range of about 1000m when used for indirect fire.

[Leetskeet]

As much as people seem to want this to be some TT -> Video game adaptation, a minimum of 200 and a maximum of 640 is literally ridiculous. At this point you'd be using LRM's because you happen to like missile based weaponry.

You only have a 440 meter bracket to actually operate in, and then the actual minimum range for half decent damage is more like 300m~ because the missiles can't curve back down on a target much closer than that, and you can see it happen multiple times in the new videos. So you don't actually have a LONG RANGE presence, and your short range presence is non-existent.

I understand that they're trying to break from the snipe matches that happened every so often in the previous Mechwarrior games, and 640 meters probably seems like a long way on a table when you're playing in turns with hexes, but I'm going to have to tell you that that distance is absolutely nothing in a Mechwarrior game.

So it seems what we're getting isn't so much a long range missile, and instead it's indirect fire weapon. It really seems overly specialized with the combination of the huge arc to create a minimum range(and who knows, the missiles may actually not detonate if you point blank some one) combined with seemingly low accuracy and medium range at best.

Currently undeserving of the "long range" part of their title.

Edit -
Where this video starts out with a mech targeted at 1050m is long range. That's where you'd be providing long range support at. By the time he closes in to the actual range of these "LRMs", that's essentially medium range. 600(closer to 300-400 in the video) meters is IN the fight. That's close enough for two of them to say "Hey there's a Catapult right there you know" and break off and come rip you up. But am I to assume this is what they're going for?

Edited by Leetskeet, 08 May 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[Dymlos2003]

I would like the ranges to stay the same as they are so that we don't get everyone going with long range mechs ala mwll

[EDMW CSN]

Karl Streiger, on 08 May 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

+1 for increasing the ranges of every weapon
for example increasing by 60% will result in LRMs ranging 1000m while a medium laser is still able to hit anything at ranges to 450m
would become harder for light rush mechs to close the gap between the effective range of a LRM artillery mech and their short range direct energy weapons.

total other idea to have two mods for missile weapons: indirect via spotter based on the different ranges of trajectory even a SRM should be able to have a range of about 1000m when used for indirect fire.

A Jenner deals 28 damage. A Commando deals 25 damage. All closed range.
Both Jenner and Commando only have 4 tons of armor scattered thinly over 8 damage locations.
A Catapult has 10 tons of armor and 4 medium lasers in addition to those huge missile racks.

If a Catapult catches one Jenner or Commando in it's sights, those lights are in a world of hurt fast.
Hell the Catapult can even out jump the Commando. The situation isn't as bad as you think unless games degenerated with lights pretty much owning every missile boat (or an Atlas with 2 LRM-15s), then there is a cause of worry.

[Karl Streiger]

[EDMW]CSN, on 08 May 2012 - 03:06 AM, said:

If a Catapult catches one Jenner or Commando in it's sights, those lights are in a world of hurt fast.

Did the dev mentioned that it was possible to outrun a incomming flight of missiles? Or will the hit with 99% ratio when a active lock is achieved?

[Victor Morson]

neodym, on 08 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

wait,LRM minimum range? no weapon should have minimum range,I didnt had minimum range in MW2,MW3 or MW4.... theres no logic in blocking LRM from firing just becose target is 199m away..... I honestly think you should fire any weapon any time,even LRM without lock on.... like theres no racional logic like "you know,the antimatter in the warheads suck ongoing tachyions into polaron singularity so you cant fire it under 200m"

They do in Table Top, with the reasoning of arming distance.

In MWLL, they did a minimum range as well; if they impacted they would do no damage, and effectively they'd arc up so sharply that they could not come down on the target if it was too close. It felt very natural.

Clan LRMs could detonate if you fired them point blank into an enemy 'mech (no arming range), but still had more of a minimum range than they did in TT.

..... the one I want explained is why in God's name an AC/5 has a minimum range. That one is just confusing.

[Gigaton]

Victor Morson, on 08 May 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

..... the one I want explained is why in God's name an AC/5 has a minimum range. That one is just confusing.

Light shell with too high muzzle velocity causes the armour piercing cap to shatter at close range against the hard armour on a battlemech. Thus the shell explodes outside without achieving the typical partial penetration and doesn't do as much damage. This is not official explanation or anything, just something I came up right now. In real life, shell shatter is more of a mid range problem (during WW2, it existed as a gap between longer range where you would penetrate and point blank range were you would also penetrate).

But unless I'm mistaken one of the devs said somewhere that minimum range on small autocannons may not be modelled in MW:O.

Leetskeet, on 08 May 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

I understand that they're trying to break from the snipe matches that happened every so often in the previous Mechwarrior games, and 640 meters probably seems like a long way on a table when you're playing in turns with hexes, but I'm going to have to tell you that that distance is absolutely nothing in a Mechwarrior game.

You can go from outside of LRM-20's firing distance to inside the miniumum distance within one turn with very fast 'mech in TT, if the situation/terrain is ideal. LRMs were also not very long ranged (when compared to later titles) in MW:2 at 630m. Neither were they in Mech Commander games as far as I can remember. Still, they definitely were long ranged weapons in both titles.

In the end, MW:O is not going to be a rehash of MW:4 or MW:LL which augmented all weapon ranges when compared to the source material. We'll eventually see how it works out in practise. It's all about balance between long and short range weapons and between mobility and long range firepower. I would point out that 'mechs will be a lot slower in general than they were in MW:4.

Edited by Gigaton, 08 May 2012 - 04:47 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Gigaton, on 08 May 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

But unless I'm mistaken one of the devs said somewhere that minimum range on small autocannons may not be modelled in MW:O.

It was in Q&A 05:

Quote

Will the ranges of the BattleMechs' weapons - and the relationships between them - be more similar to those from the BattleTech tabletop game (including, perhaps, some implementation of any of the minimum, short, medium, long, and extreme range brackets), or those from the previous MechWarrior computer games? –Strum Wealh

[DAVID] With minimum ranges, it depends on how justified we can be in putting them into the game without them being silly. For PPCs, there’s mentions in the lore about they don’t reach a full charge at close ranges so as not to damage the attacker’s own electronic systems. LRMs, being meant for long range, do not necessarily arm before they clear a certain distance. But it’s harder to justify why you can’t accurately fire an Autocannon/2 or Autocannon/5 up close, other than it was a balance to their long range in the tabletop game, so they won’t be affected by any sort of minimum range. The tabletop long ranges, on the other hand, we’re interpreting as the maximum effective range. Lasers, AC slugs, and whatnot will travel past this range, but will begin to do less and less damage, and the effects of gravity on any sort of physical projectile will make it harder to hit your target. Missiles reaching the limits of their range will automatically detonate.

From the above, it seems like minimum ranges for such weapons as PPCs (min. range of 90 meters) and LRMs (min. range of 180 meters) may be implemented, while those of such weapons as Gauss Rifles (min. range of 60 meters) and the lighter ACs (min ranges of 90-120 meters) may not be, as they would be "harder to justify".