18 replies to this topic

[Wolfgang Von Schmuck]

i was playing mw4mercs tonight, and having a blast with fire-support mechs (jenner, catapult, vulture) loaded with streak MRMs. now i know streak missiles are too late for MWO (at least until the clanners show up. then i'll pry some from their cold dead hands....) but are MRMs lostech? that and i like the fact that not only can you get MRM20s, you can get MRM30s and 40s. i wonder why this upscaling was never applied to SRMs or LRMs to that degree.
imagine: a catapult with a pair of LRM60s......



anyway, im writing this at ~3:30 in the AM local time. and im not entirely sure if 'spring forward' makes that earlier or later. so if this sounds completely insane, please ignore as you would other crazy ramblings

TO SLEEP! AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!.....
zzzzzzzzzz......

[trycksh0t]

The reason MRMs are fired in such massive volleys is they are dead-fire missiles, where as both SRMs and LRMs contain guidance systems. Because MRMs have no guidance, less damage (warhead) than SRMs, and less range than LRMs, they are a heck of a lot smaller, hence being able to carry a lot more. They are, however, decidedly less accurate, so the massive numbers are required to ensure a reasonable amount of damage. For all intents and purposes, MRMs are heavy, more expensive, re-loadable rocket launchers.

For the record, I voted "NO" on upscaling LRM and SRMs. LRM-60s with Artemis IV could one-shot over half the 'Mechs in the Universe.

[John Clavell]

Maybe we'll see Arrows IV later on, considering scouts can spot. Seems very possible to allow them to TAG.

[Strum Wealh]

"The Medium-Range Missile Launcher was designed by scientists at Luthien Armor Works. MRMs are dead-fire missiles that are fired more like lasers than missiles. In order to pack as many missiles as possible into one salvo, scientists removed guidance systems and made the whole package smaller. Though this was seen as a step backwards in technological development, the inexpensive and deadly MRMs have spread throughout the Draconis Combine and to many mercenary units.

The lack of a guidance system and unique nature of MRMs means that they are incompatible with special munitions and advanced guidance systems, though they can be prepared as a single-shot system."

MRMs were introduced by the Draconis Combine in 3058.
So, they're not LosTech, but they wouldn't (canonically) be around for a while yet.

Similar functionality could be had from loading LRM and SRM launchers with unguided "dead-fire missiles" rather than the normal guided munitions (if MWO implements alternate ammo types in general and dead-fire missiles in particular).

As for larger launcher types for LRMs and SRMs... larger launchers would, to fit the patterns established by the other launchers in the same class, eventually become too heavy and/or bulky to be viable.

LRM-5: 2 tons, 1 critical, 24 shots per ton of ammo
LRM-10: 5 tons, 2 criticals, 12 shots per ton of ammo
LRM-15: 7 tons, 3 criticals, 8 shots per ton of ammo
LRM-20: 10 tons, 5 criticals, 6 shots per ton of ammo

SRM-2: 1 ton, 1 critical, 50 shots per ton of ammo
SRM-4: 2 tons, 1 critical, 25 shots per ton of ammo
SRM-6: 3 tons, 2 criticals, 15 shots per ton of ammo

Also, as trycksh0t pointed out, substantially upscaled launchers would kinda break the game...

[S3dition]

This is the basic problem with an open mech lab - people can make boats. Yeah, you can stack SRM 6's on mechs so deep it can knock over a 100 ton mech in one shot and leave most of its systems critical.

But that doesn't make for a fun game at all.I'm more and more becoming a fan of variants with some upgrades, but not an open mech lab like the previous games.

[warner2]

S3dition, on 11 March 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

This is the basic problem with an open mech lab - people can make boats. Yeah, you can stack SRM 6's on mechs so deep it can knock over a 100 ton mech in one shot and leave most of its systems critical.

But that doesn't make for a fun game at all.I'm more and more becoming a fan of variants with some upgrades, but not an open mech lab like the previous games.

That's a rather specific prediction of what you can and can't put on a mech. Are you on the development team? No, I didn't think so. You have no idea how many SRM6 you can get on a mech in MWO. You have no idea of how big hard points are, how much space in a hard point an SRM6 will take up, or anything. It's called game balance, and I'm sure the MWO team can design things to prevent game breaking scenarios like the one you've dreamed up.

Edited by Metro, 11 March 2012 - 02:27 AM.
Lets please watch our tone of language. THIS is certainly not something to be getting riled up over.....SO everyone calm down and discuss, nicely. Or we will close 'er down.

[LordDeathStrike]

Wolfgang Von *******, on 11 March 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

i was playing mw4mercs tonight, and having a blast with fire-support mechs (jenner, catapult, vulture) loaded with streak MRMs. now i know streak missiles are too late for MWO (at least until the clanners show up. then i'll pry some from their cold dead hands....) but are MRMs lostech? that and i like the fact that not only can you get MRM20s, you can get MRM30s and 40s. i wonder why this upscaling was never applied to SRMs or LRMs to that degree.
imagine: a catapult with a pair of LRM60s......



anyway, im writing this at ~3:30 in the AM local time. and im not entirely sure if 'spring forward' makes that earlier or later. so if this sounds completely insane, please ignore as you would other crazy ramblings

TO SLEEP! AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!.....
zzzzzzzzzz......

there are a couple support assault chasis that can just handle 6x lrm 20, but they are only volley mechs, they have no other back up weapons. the lrm comes in a max size of 20 per launcher due to rule restrictions, mrms are dumbfire rockets and thus another animal and come in the other sizes, and again only heavy mechs have an mrm 40 launcher and only assaults have more then 1.

standard srms are rockets and the rules say they come in 2 4 and 6 shot, they are small and reliable and if you have the internals you can mount a few of them, but they rely on ammo, and 3049 is pre case, having alot of ammo on board is a bad idea, ammo takes a bad hit or gets too hot, and BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE.

ps when im in a chasis like the atlas, i know my main weakness is going to be open area lrm spam, i am going to have at least 1 AMS on each shoulder shooting down missiles as they come, and im going to have the ams skills maxed out. if im the only ams user in my lance, i may bring as many ams as my atlas can carry and halo effect my lance, aka you wont land a single lrm on us unless you have 5+ mechs with 2-4 lrm 20s each all fireing in unison, and even then most of the missiles wont touch us, i assure you my ams ammo will outlast your missile ammo!

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 11 March 2012 - 02:03 AM.

[Leetskeet]

warner__, on 11 March 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

That's a rather specific prediction of what you can and can't put on a mech. Are you on the development team? No, I didn't think so. You have no idea how many SRM6 you can get on a mech in MWO. You have no idea of how big hard points are, how much space in a hard point an SRM6 will take up, or anything. It's called game balance, and I'm sure the MWO team can design things to prevent game breaking scenarios like the one you've dreamed up.

You took what he said the wrong way. Hard. Perhaps a bit less effort or the arrogant "**WE DONT ALLOW THIS WORD HERE** "part of your personality and a little more effort on reading comprehension.

At some point your silly little brain mistook

S3dition, on 11 March 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

I'm more and more becoming a fan of variants with some upgrades, but not an open mech lab like the previous games.

for

S3dition, on 11 March 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

I like that the MWO Mechlab only has variants that allow for minor upgrades and tweaking. It's not an open mech lab like previous games. I have insider information that the rest of you don't know.

Edited by Metro, 11 March 2012 - 02:31 AM.
Lets watch our language. Discuss nicley, and choose words that convey your opinion, without calling someone names, vulgar or otherwise. Consider yourself warned.

[Elizander]

They said there was a mechlab... so just add more LRM launchers?

[Dr Killinger]

Wolfgang Von *******, on 11 March 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

i wonder why this upscaling was never applied to SRMs or LRMs to that degree.

I voted no, since it's not canon. If you want 60 LRMS, get 3 LRM20's. Also, less boating=better, in my books.

John Clavell, on 11 March 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Maybe we'll see Arrows IV later on, considering scouts can spot. Seems very possible to allow them to TAG.

Since MWO is based on a non-respawn model, I think that the introduction of Arrow IVs would ruin the fun. I can imagine running out into the field, then BOOM. My mech is destroyed, or reduced to an armless husk. Then, I sit on the sidelines and watch the next 10 minutes of the match. I can't imagine that being fun at all.

Edited by Dr.Killinger, 11 March 2012 - 02:34 AM.

[metro]

Good Morning!!

Everyone please keep on point, with the discussion, and lets watch our choice of words and tone.

Thank you.

[warner2]

Leetskeet, on 11 March 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

You took what he said the wrong way. Hard. Perhaps a bit less effort or the arrogant "**WE DONT ALLOW THIS WORD HERE** "part of your personality and a little more effort on reading comprehension.

At some point your silly little brain mistook for

Not at all, you misunderstand me. My point was simply that it would be not be a good idea to claim that an open mech lab is somehow bad without knowing what other features of the game are put in place to prevent boating (if indeed boating is a bad thing) which was the original objection ("this is the basic problem with an open mech lab - people can make boats"). It's simply not known whether you can make boats at this point. For example, an LRM5 could take 2 slots, an LRM10 3 slots, and an LRM20 4 slots in some random slot system I just made up as an example. In that case it may well be pointless to try to boat LRM5s since you would have a straight choice between one LRM20 or two LRM5. What you may be able to do is swap an SRM6 for an LRM10 or something, within some hard-point system.

[zverofaust]

Dr.Killinger, on 11 March 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

Since MWO is based on a non-respawn model, I think that the introduction of Arrow IVs would ruin the fun. I can imagine running out into the field, then BOOM. My mech is destroyed, or reduced to an armless husk. Then, I sit on the sidelines and watch the next 10 minutes of the match. I can't imagine that being fun at all.

Re: World of Tanks and Artillery. I like the idea though as an Arrow Mech would have to put itself into harm's way to fire more often than not, and countermeasures can make it less effective.

[Lightfoot]

Just stick with normal MW missile systems. I will add that SRMs should track better than LRMs.

[Jacob Carlyle]

warner__, on 12 March 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Not at all, you misunderstand me. My point was simply that it would be not be a good idea to claim that an open mech lab is somehow bad without knowing what other features of the game are put in place to prevent boating (if indeed boating is a bad thing) which was the original objection ("this is the basic problem with an open mech lab - people can make boats"). It's simply not known whether you can make boats at this point. For example, an LRM5 could take 2 slots, an LRM10 3 slots, and an LRM20 4 slots in some random slot system I just made up as an example. In that case it may well be pointless to try to boat LRM5s since you would have a straight choice between one LRM20 or two LRM5. What you may be able to do is swap an SRM6 for an LRM10 or something, within some hard-point system.

You still to be misunderstanding (misreading?) the chap you originally quoted.
Your point about not knowing what mitigating factors may or may not appear in MWO is irrelevant since the point was in reference to previous mech labs where there were no such factors. Ie, if MWO does have some mitigating factors, then it won’t be:

S3dition, on 11 March 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

like the previous games.

Frankly, the abuse of the mech lab in MW3 and MW4 made it way too easy to make something completely ridiculous, hell MW3 let you configure a mech that could run faster than missiles flew.

[Soviet Alex]

1) Stick with the "canon" missile launchers that we all know & love. LRM-5/10/15/20, SRM-2/4/6, Artemis, Streak & MRM as we unlock the shiny tech.

2) The effective limit for LRMs in Battletech & MW3 was 4xLRM-20. Any more & you didn't have enough criticals for anything else & ran out of ammo too fast. Also reloading will cost C-bills in MW-O, so a missile-Awesome may not be very cost-effective.

3) Anti-Missile systems are lostech, but they are one of the first systems to be rediscovered. Hopefully they'll be in the game from the start, & hopefully they won't require ammo (as seen in MW3).

4) Watch the in-game footage from GDC 2012. LRMs have a very pronounced arcing flightpath, far more than I've seen before. That & a good spotter gives us indirect fire. Now all we need is an announcement about alternative ammo types.

[Dayuhan]

If you want to scale up the launcher, just put multiple launchers in the chassis. Want an LRM-30, but an LRM-20 and LRM-10 launcher in the chassis. Want an SRM-30, put five SRM-6 launchers in the chassis. When it becomes available you can add either Artemis IV or Streak technology to make them more accurate - don't forget the CASE.

[Volume]

Guys, haven't we had enough "anti-boating" threads and "anti-open-mechlab" threads?

This thread isn't about those. Even if it was about them, but thinly disguised as a missile-weapon thread, shouldn't you at least mention the missile weapons?

The way I see it is that they shouldn't be expanded upon at this time. That's for several reasons. First of all, there are a ton of BT weapons that I would like to see created and represented before they start making new ones, not to mention different ammo types involved. I don't hate the idea of a LRM-25 or LRM-30, but LRM-60s would be overkill, sort of lie having a quad-laser or something. It's the kind of thing I joked around with my friends when I was in elementary school playing MW2 in '96. It isn't a bad idea, but it just was decided against for a variety of reasons.

That said - it was not because of boating or 'mechlab. A "can't make it, players would exploit it" philosophy leads to very, very bad design. it beckons question such as "why include a medium laser, people will put them on almost every 'mech and exploit them" or other such inane dribble. The way I see it is that at this point in time, MWO is probably looking to balance everything they've got, then play with ammo types (and hopefully make LBX able to shoot both slug and cluster munitions), then maybe deal with the next hundred years of the BT timeline.

Effectively, they have so much material to work with already, adding new stuff would make the mix of hundreds of weapons and 'mechs even more overwhelming than it already is. Don't get me wrong, I love new stuff, but canon, canon, canon.

Also, this is your LRM-60 carrier

[TheRulesLawyer]

LRM 40's or 60's don't exist in 3049, so no. They shouldn't exist. Or even for that matter. Plenty of canon weapons to implement before we get to non-canon weapons.