57 replies to this topic

[Graverobber]

I would really like to see laser and ballistic weapons have an convergence point. This idea has been around ever since there has been multiple guns mounted on a single mount (turret, plane, half-track, etc.). This allows for the pilot to adjust their own aim to their preference. Some pilots would have all of their guns converge on a single point at or under the maximum effective range of the gun, some would stagger, some would go for a box formation, but any combination is possible. This allowed the pilot to fire as they wished and make the guns work to their style of fighting rather than forcing their style of fighting to be forced to the gun. No matter what direction this goes I hope the developers will let us know how this will be implemented.

[Ragotag]

BerryChunks, on 10 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

some people need to reading comprehension.

"Lack sophisticated guidance" =/= "Has NO guidance system".

...and some people need a little help with grammar, but let's not nit-pick here.

The meaning of "lack's sophisticated guidance" is totally speculative. It could also mean that the standard SRM warhead can only track to target from 10 meters out, so the gunner must at least get the missiles within close proximity to the target in order for them to track and hit. Again, all speculative since Sarna.net and the TRO's don't elaborate.

The Dev's will do what the Dev's will do, so how about we wait for beta to over analyze this stuff?

[MaddMaxx]

BerryChunks, on 10 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

some people need to reading comprehension.

"Lack sophisticated guidance" =/= "Has NO guidance system".

And with that I will end this little game. I wish it had been either fun for me or informative from you, sadly it was neither.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 April 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[BerryChunks]

Ragotag, on 10 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

...and some people need a little help with grammar, but let's not nit-pick here.

The meaning of "lack's sophisticated guidance" is totally speculative. It could also mean that the standard SRM warhead can only track to target from 10 meters out, so the gunner must at least get the missiles within close proximity to the target in order for them to track and hit. Again, all speculative since Sarna.net and the TRO's don't elaborate.

The Dev's will do what the Dev's will do, so how about we wait for beta to over analyze this stuff?

I hope you don't nitpick a meme that is intentionally grammatically incorrect.

If you read the page on SRMs, it specifically states that due to less sophisticated technology it doesn't go as far, hence it's max range isn't is far as LRMs.

MaddMaxx, on 10 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

And with that I will end this little game. I wish it had been either fun for me or informative from you, sadly it was neither.

Aw don't take your toys and go home. It was fun and informative for me, reinforcing what I already understood to be true, and it should've been informative for you, if not fun due to you being embarrassed.

[Grimm Gunn]

the looping of a LRM....
i dont see it as a realistic idea,, But then again....
TAG missles WILL increase your lock on signal strenght,,
HEck !!
It will draw all the freindly fired non locked misslies to the enemy mech its attached to..
Luv using them on the lighter chassis!!!!.

[William Petersen]

Grimm Gunn, on 10 April 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

TAG missles WILL increase your lock on signal strenght,,

O.o TAG isn't a missile. TAG isn't for missiles (as in LRM/SRM). TAG is for artillery.

[syngyne]

William Petersen, on 10 April 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

O.o TAG isn't a missile. TAG isn't for missiles (as in LRM/SRM). TAG is for artillery.

It's apparently for semi-guided LRMs as well now.

[ice trey]

Personally, I think that LRMs should guide in on the target in a limited fashion, so if it misses the target, it doesn't pull a Mechwarrior 4 / Mechwarrior 2 and start spinning around wildly to hit the target. Rather, if the target manages to dodge the first pass, the missiles stop trying to home in on a target, possibly even detonating mid-air to avoid damaging civilian targets (The ares conventions are still in effect by this point, after all)

If we get Streak SRMs, though, Those things should be almost cartoony in how well they home in on a target.
http://www.youtube.c...54TQv61IsU#t=6m

Edited by ice trey, 10 April 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Sug]

It always bothered me in the TT that LRMs didn't get a hit bonus for long range, the range they were designed for...

I always imagined that LRMs had a better chance of hitting at LR because they had more time to track the target and guide themselves but were less accurate close up. Almost as if the short/medium/long range modifiers for weapons were reversed i.e +4/+2/+0

The unguided SRMs should be more accurate because they are faster(making it easier to hit a moving target under your reticle), not because they are locked on a target.

[David Campbell]

I answered to what I would LIKE to happen. That being said...run according to the 'Tables' for hit locations...its random based on facing, as it should be.

Purest at Heart.

[warner2]

I'm not at all sure what the BT rules say about SRMs, whether they are guided or what. I do remember that in Mechwarrior 4 they were basically useless weapons as it was pretty hard to get an SRM 6 to hit even at short range, and when they did they didn't do much damage. So even in pure tech, on IS mechs, they received no use at all. There isn't much point in a weapon being in the game if it isn't used.

[HIemfire]

warner__, on 10 April 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm not at all sure what the BT rules say about SRMs, whether they are guided or what. I do remember that in Mechwarrior 4 they were basically useless weapons as it was pretty hard to get an SRM 6 to hit even at short range, and when they did they didn't do much damage. So even in pure tech, on IS mechs, they received no use at all. There isn't much point in a weapon being in the game if it isn't used.

Lead the target slightly and keep moving. I could hit a fair majority of the time with SRMs in 4, Streaks were just ludacris

[Torrix]

StaggerCheck, on 09 April 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

Hey gang, seeing as MW:O is a sim and the player base have different takes on what a sim would mean for Battletech, I think it would be interesting to see how we differ in what we expect to see when we pull the trigger [click the mouse, etc] Do all our weapons converge on the location indicated by the pipper? Do they stray a little and hit someone where we didn't expect them to? Do all our missiles hit, or do some fly by the target, even though our targeting system told us we had a target lock?

I ask this because of someone I ran into one day, many years ago. I was young, perhaps 15 or 16 years old, standing outside a model and hobby shop. I was looking at model kits in the window before the store opened and a gentleman was outside, as well. There were some different American fighter planes on display, and the man asked me, "Which one is your favourite?" I pointed at the A-10 Thunderbolt model kit and said, "This one... I know it is slow, but I like ground attack aircraft more than fighter planes." He thought that was interesting and pointed at an F4 Phantom. He then said, "I flew one of these in Vietnam." I thought that was pretty interesting, and we had a nice conversation before the store opened. Afterwards, one thing he said stuck in my mind. He was talking about how the movie Top Gun was all garbage, and that it took a lot longer than one or two seconds to get a missile lock, like in the movie. He said it was much longer, and it took some really good flying to get a missile kill, let alone a gun kill. Thus this poll and the questions within. Maybe the way we have it in our minds, after playing video games and/or watching movies, is different from what other people think. I know that, after playing TT and reading the novels, I have a certain understanding of how the targeting and weapon hit chances go, but I also played Mechwarrior quite a bit, so I have that in my noggin, too.

The avionics in the F-4 *did* require a good bit of time to get a lock, compared to an F-14 or any other modern era fighter. Now, I'm not saying that Top Gun wasn't Hollywood-ed up big time, but the avionics packages in the mid 80s let alone now, can lock up another fighter pretty damn quick. F-4s were involved in the first missile fights in the air, using very crappy (by later standards) first generation AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar guided missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinders that weren't nearly as agile (as now) and could only get a lock on a bright heat source from the rear of the aircraft.

All that being said, I do hope that missile boating/god launchers is kept to a minimum in MWO.

warner__, on 10 April 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm not at all sure what the BT rules say about SRMs, whether they are guided or what. I do remember that in Mechwarrior 4 they were basically useless weapons as it was pretty hard to get an SRM 6 to hit even at short range, and when they did they didn't do much damage. So even in pure tech, on IS mechs, they received no use at all. There isn't much point in a weapon being in the game if it isn't used.

Regular SRMs were basically dumb fire missiles, a big rocket. Streaks were guided and didn't come along until the Clans invaded.

[MaddMaxx]

Torrix, on 10 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Regular SRMs were basically dumb fire missiles, a big rocket. Streaks were guided and didn't come along until the Clans invaded.

Shhh. There are others who would try and embarrass you with that line of thought. We sort of assumed that is why they invented Artemis IV systems, but. shhhh they don't want to hear that.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 10 April 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Punisher 1]

For me with missiles if they are tracking all missiles will hit the target but not in the exact same spot if the target is moving.

Missiles fired at a stationary target will hit mostly the targeted point of impact mostly. The exception is dumb fire which are only good in close combat with all fired at once they should impact in roughly the same area or create splash damage. However if they miss they travel until out of fuel.

Multiple LASERS aimed at a target should impact the same point as long as all weapons are calibrated properly weapons or weapons mounted on damaged areas will be off slightly spreading the damage a little. Or Damaged weapons might have a lesser damage ability or impact slightly off point of aim.

If weapons in this game are skewed to the point where aiming for one area is pointless it will ruin the game for me. I do not want wild deviation of the weapon systems like in other FPS's.

Edited by Punisher_1, 10 April 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

mech3 had the best LRMs and they would be exceptionally suited to MWO.

They would be BETTER than the LRMS we currently have, while letting pilots dodge them, aiming pilots aim them, and we could ditch the 60% extra damage because when they hit theyd actually do some real damage, and in general would actually require skill to use & to dodge. cover would be viable, fast intelligent vectoring movement would be viable, and everyone and their mother wouldnt be hiding behind hills hitting P twice to lose locks or playing boat the AMS.

right now lrms are grandma weapons. ie - I could give my grandma a computer, log her into the game, move her catapult onto a hill, and train her to track red targets and hold down fire for the entire game,and she'd probably do just fine.

[dyndragon]

Have we even talked about the angle of attack for LRM pods? Why do they fire straight forward?

[Lavrenti]

dyndragon, on 02 November 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

Have we even talked about the angle of attack for LRM pods? Why do they fire straight forward?

It came up during the closed beta, and IIRC the conclusion was that they should be going up at a pretty steep angle at launch instead of straight ahead. Currently they're difficult to use from any terrain except a moderately steep hill. I agree they don't need to be buffed, but as an ex-artilleryman their terrible ballistics offend me