28 replies to this topic

[Fetladral]

No idea if they will put long toms in as very few mechs could carry and use them effectively.

[Monky]

Orzorn, on 28 April 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

You know, that is interesting. I suppose that means that LRMs will not lock on normally. You just point and shoot. They'll try to alter their flight path a bit, but they won't really strain to hit the target. It seems to me that, most likely because ALL other Mechwarrior games have had normal LRMs require locks, people have assumed MWO LRMs will be able to lock on as well. I think that sort of behavior is now only available to Artemis equipped systems.

I like it. Previous titles, and MWLL, have a tendency to become LRM camping matches. Now we'll be forced to have forward spotters if we want to do anything more than dumbfire all the time.

If you watch the gameplay video they seem to home on a visible target without requiring much, and the ranges of SRM and LRM seem to overlap as well.

[Aelos03]

Fetladral, on 28 April 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

No idea if they will put long toms in as very few mechs could carry and use them effectively.

well we will see it its just matter of time

[Orzorn]

monky, on 28 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

If you watch the gameplay video they seem to home on a visible target without requiring much, and the ranges of SRM and LRM seem to overlap as well.

Yeah, and they don't lock, either. Every time they were fired they just put the reticule over the target and fired.

Some people complained when they saw the LRMs being fired on such close targets, but checking the canon ranges, they go from 1 - 21 hexes with no minimum range. Additionally, all LRMs shared the same ranges.

[Monky]

Orzorn, on 28 April 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yeah, and they don't lock, either. Every time they were fired they just put the reticule over the target and fired.

Some people complained when they saw the LRMs being fired on such close targets, but checking the canon ranges, they go from 1 - 21 hexes with no minimum range. Additionally, all LRMs shared the same ranges.

I think the discrepancy there is in canon, there was a flight time requirement to arm the missiles which equaled out to 6 hexes for 'all missiles in the salvo are armed'. Shorter than that and some will be duds (in order to balance the ease of shooting down 6 SRM's vs 20 LRM's with an AMS system probably)

[Aelos03]

Orzorn, on 28 April 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yeah, and they don't lock, either. Every time they were fired they just put the reticule over the target and fired.

Some people complained when they saw the LRMs being fired on such close targets, but checking the canon ranges, they go from 1 - 21 hexes with no minimum range. Additionally, all LRMs shared the same ranges.

well if have missiles why i wouldn't be able to fire them at any rage even without lock, its more real and gives me more flexibility with my weapons system, of course i expect it to be hard to hit without lock on close range but i should be able to lock too.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Aelos03, on 28 April 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

well if have missiles why i wouldn't be able to fire them at any rage even without lock, its more real and gives me more flexibility with my weapons system, of course i expect it to be hard to hit without lock on close range but i should be able to lock too.

The idea is if you are in cover and fire your missiles you don't want them exploding so close to you that they damage the launcher. This part of RW missile launchers etc.

I think the reason we don't see locks in the videos is it takes time to lock on and if the mech is close enough for short range weapons, then you probably don't really have the luxury of sitting around. Also better to fire, get some hits, and start the reloading process than take time for a lock on which might only get you a couple more hits.

[TrentTheWanderer]

I'm not familiar with the "Artemis" missile in canon, but it seems like in execution it is closer to a cruise missile than a "hellfire".

I really like the idea of being able to equip comms and targeting systems to whichever mechs you like, equip comms and relay/command systems to the "commander" mech as desired, and arm up some chassis with actual artillery.

It's great to have class systems, but for it to be fun it really needs to be more flexible. There will always be pros and cons to using one chassis over another, and there are LOTS of ways to acquire and identify targets, so limiting those functions to a handful of mechs could limit some pilot's abilities to play as they like.

Forinstance:

You have a lance defending an objective. You armed up an Atlas with target identification, communications, and other systems necessary to identify targets for arty and armored it as heavily as possible, and the rest of your team fell back. When the enemy comes to get the objective your atlas is going to stay alive as long as possible and designate targets. Your commander is going to hand out the targeting data to your support units, some of which are armed with LRMs, some have sacrificed nearly their whole payloads to carry artillery instead.

You have a valid and tactically sound plan for defending this objective, but you are doing it atypically from what is the general consensus for scouting targets and using indirect fires. If we limit role equipment to different mech classes or chassis it could eliminate the players ability to innovate in this way.

I, for one, think if we use a different type of designation module for each support weapon system (LRM, arty, Artemis) we can strike a healthy balance and promote some unit diversity at the same time.

[JazzySteel]

TrentTheWanderer, on 28 April 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'm not familiar with the "Artemis" missile in canon, but it seems like in execution it is closer to a cruise missile than a "hellfire".

I really like the idea of being able to equip comms and targeting systems to whichever mechs you like, equip comms and relay/command systems to the "commander" mech as desired, and arm up some chassis with actual artillery.

It's great to have class systems, but for it to be fun it really needs to be more flexible. There will always be pros and cons to using one chassis over another, and there are LOTS of ways to acquire and identify targets, so limiting those functions to a handful of mechs could limit some pilot's abilities to play as they like.

Forinstance:

You have a lance defending an objective. You armed up an Atlas with target identification, communications, and other systems necessary to identify targets for arty and armored it as heavily as possible, and the rest of your team fell back. When the enemy comes to get the objective your atlas is going to stay alive as long as possible and designate targets. Your commander is going to hand out the targeting data to your support units, some of which are armed with LRMs, some have sacrificed nearly their whole payloads to carry artillery instead.

You have a valid and tactically sound plan for defending this objective, but you are doing it atypically from what is the general consensus for scouting targets and using indirect fires. If we limit role equipment to different mech classes or chassis it could eliminate the players ability to innovate in this way.

I, for one, think if we use a different type of designation module for each support weapon system (LRM, arty, Artemis) we can strike a healthy balance and promote some unit diversity at the same time.

Scouting with an Atlas? Are you related to a lady by the name of Katrina?