196 replies to this topic

[Marowi]

Oh, no doubt--and there the range limitation + low ratio of hits to misses makes a lot of sense. I just wonder whether the relative disadvantage of missiles in direct-fire engagements will force missile-heavy players to fight from cover more often than not, or if there will be a way for them to stand up in open battle.

[trycksh0t]

Marowi, on 08 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Oh, no doubt--and there the range limitation + low ratio of hits to misses makes a lot of sense. I just wonder whether the relative disadvantage of missiles in direct-fire engagements will force missile-heavy players to fight from cover more often than not, or if there will be a way for them to stand up in open battle.

LRM heavy designs are not intended to operate well in an open battle, they're second-line fire support designs. While they can defend themselves, they really shouldn't be left in a situation where they would have to. An in BT terms, a 400+ meter engagement window is pretty significant, especially when you can hit that from behind cover without having to stick your head out.

[Goldhawk]

It's good that LRMs have a limited range, because golly gee, having a weapon that has absolutely no flaws in the usage of said product is exactly what each weapon should have.
In fact, since I have a Huge AC/20 It should headshot enemy mechs at 900 meters because I'm that good of a pilot.
We shouldn't kill people at long ranges with "sniper rifles", clearly the Shotgun can kill people at long range.....
Autocannons, are useful at almost every range unless they are built for them
PPCs, can work at point-blank range, if the inhibitor is turned off
Lasers, dissipate after a certain distance.
Gauss, can hit at ranges similar to LRMS.
If you can't work with these limitations. Please, choose another game.

[Mike Silva]

Marowi, on 08 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Oh, no doubt--and there the range limitation + low ratio of hits to misses makes a lot of sense. I just wonder whether the relative disadvantage of missiles in direct-fire engagements will force missile-heavy players to fight from cover more often than not, or if there will be a way for them to stand up in open battle.

It'll be interesting to see if people are smart enough to use proper teamwork with the missile boats. Ideally you want to make going after your missile launchers impractical by threatening to flank with your hard hitting skirmishers ala Hunchback, etc.

Generally I'm not the type to associate with groups in online games, but I think that maybe I'll seek out some like minded people who intend to take the "role based warfare" thing seriously.

Goldhawk, on 08 May 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

It's good that LRMs have a limited range, because golly gee, having a weapon that has absolutely no flaws in the usage of said product is exactly what each weapon should have.
In fact, since I have a Huge AC/20 It should headshot enemy mechs at 900 meters because I'm that good of a pilot.
We shouldn't kill people at long ranges with "sniper rifles", clearly the Shotgun can kill people at long range.....
Autocannons, are useful at almost every range unless they are built for them
PPCs, can work at point-blank range, if the inhibitor is turned off
Lasers, dissipate after a certain distance.
Gauss, can hit at ranges similar to LRMS.
If you can't work with these limitations. Please, choose another game.

So concerning PPCs.... have they announced exactly how they're going to make them more difficult to use at ranges under 90 meters? Because you can still use them at knife fighting range, it's just supposed to be more difficult to land a solid shot.

[Vollstrecker]

The range on LRMs have been fine for over 25 years, I think I'll wait and see how they play before I start worrying.

[Torrix]

I personally am perfectly happy with the LRM range, here's why:

1. Less stand-off boating
2. No (or almost no) weapon can be useful at both long range and short range
3. No sniper fests
4. All weapons will have utility, requiring thought in the mech lab.

[Yeach]

Mason Grimm, on 08 May 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

I merged the LRM not being so LR thread + the LRM cycle times thread.

Because they are both LRM; whats the matter with you?!?!?!

Makes sense because oviously the only Canadian way to discuss about LRM distance is to based it off time.
Question: What is the range on the LRM?
Answer: about 3 seconds

Major Tom, on 04 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

I'm not seeing the problem.
A Jenner can cross 1000m in 3 seconds.

Tekkiller, on 04 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

lolwut?
1000meters in 3 secs = 333 m/s
333m/s = 20,000m / minute
20,000m / minute = 1,200,000 meters/hour
1,200,000 meters/hour = 1,200 kilometers /hour
That is ONE FAST JENNER!!!

http://mwomercs.com/...e-100-accurate/

Reference:
How far is it from Ottawa to Toronto? about 4.5 hours
How about Edmonton to Calgary? about 3 hours
(The above is based on Canadian highways maximum speeds of 100km/hr)

Edited by Yeach, 08 May 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Kyrus Darkstar]

It's hard to really comment because of course its speculation, knowing the full size of the sandbox would go a long way of course..

So, assuming the game has maps atleast the size of mechwarrior: mercenaries(shouldn't be too crazy an assumption), they should stick with similar ranges. You can't base a computer game's ranges off of a table top. Proportional damage types? Sure, great. But ranges? Seems a bit obvious why that would be a bad idea.

[Yeach]

Mchawkeye, on 08 May 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Two posts in one day...That's a recent record for me.

I remember saying many months ago (back when this forum was young and I made a name for my self on the medium circuit) that I would have liked the weapon ranges increased, especially in regards to support mechs; LRMs.

640m. Pretty sure I can spit that far, but in the video the Cat did seem to be able to say out of the main fight and provide support, which is arguably the fundamental point. the maps are much more complex than the old flat-heres-a-random-small-hill-type-bump which makes lines of sight much harder to acquire and maintain. which again makes the indirect nature of the LRM accessible and desirable, despite the fairly short range.

To summarise, I do want longer ranges on support weapons, but I am in no way dissuaded by the implementation shown so far; the support weapons do just that, which is surely the point. Keep it up, PGI.

Changing the range of any weapons SHOULD result in the change of maximum speed of every mech.
33% increasing in range of LRM SHOULD result in 33% increase in speed of every mech.

There is a TT balance between range and mech speed.

[Mchawkeye]

Yeach, on 08 May 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Changing the range of any weapons SHOULD result in the change of maximum speed of every mech.
33% increasing in range of LRM SHOULD result in 33% increase in speed of every mech.

There is a TT balance between range and mech speed.

Uh, ok, but where did I mention mech speed?

Table top balance range/speed does not apply here. Table top was turn based, hexes or Cm, not actual KPH (or is it proper MPH?) so the direct TT-VG balance is off already.

Whilst I don't know what it SHOULD do, a balance between attack speed and weapon ability should exist and I think does, from the look of it.

[Mason Grimm]

Yeach, on 08 May 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Makes sense because oviously the only Canadian way to discuss about LRM distance is to based it off time.
Question: What is the range on the LRM?
Answer: about 3 seconds



http://mwomercs.com/...e-100-accurate/

Reference:
How far is it from Ottawa to Toronto? about 4.5 hours
How about Edmonton to Calgary? about 3 hours
(The above is based on Canadian highways maximum speeds of 100km/hr)

Best Post of the Day!!!!

Now where is my Metric Edition Banhammer!!!!!

[Zakatak]

I think it is good that the LRM range isn't 1000 meters. But even so, 630 meters seems a little close to me. Not to mention it's an ugly number.

700m sounds pretty good, right guys?

[MaddMaxx]

Mason Grimm, on 09 May 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Best Post of the Day!!!!

Now where is my Metric Edition Banhammer!!!!!

It would have been way better had he gotten the Highway speed bit actually right?

P.S. That metric thing you seek is over here...

[Mason Grimm]

MaddMaxx, on 09 May 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

It would have been way better had he gotten the Highway speed bit actually right?

In Ontario the HTA states that the maximum posted speed on the QEW or on most 400 series highways is 100km, unless otherwise posted. Everyone knows that Ontario is the centre of the known universe

[MaddMaxx]

Mason Grimm, on 09 May 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

In Ontario the HTA states that the maximum posted speed on the QEW or on most 400 series highways is 100km, unless otherwise posted. Everyone knows that Ontario is the centre of the known universe

Is Yeach from Ontario? You poor Sloooooow buggers. Now I know why I always fly into Ontario. 110km on 100 series in NS baby. Hitchhiking is hazardous to anyone's health on them highways? The Big Rigs can really get rolling... LOL

[Kudzu]

Mchawkeye, on 08 May 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Table top balance range/speed does not apply here. Table top was turn based, hexes or Cm, not actual KPH (or is it proper MPH?) so the direct TT-VG balance is off already.

Actually, 1 MP = 10.8 KPH, so yes, the TT range/speed applies.

[Lightfoot]

What I see that is wrong with LRMs in the videos is the low accuracy. I saw one salvo completely miss a 'mech that was standing still.

Now I can understand this if you don't have line-of-sight (LOS) on the target, the missiles would have some trouble making the arc correctly. However if you do have direct LOS reticle contact on the target the accuracy should be high, to make LRMs competitive with direct fire weapons like Gauss Rifles, PPCs, ERPPCs and ER Lasers. It also makes LRMs more skill based instead of unskilled, which they will be if indirect fire accuracy is roughly the same as LOS accuracy.

[Nawiedzony]

I just curious if any of TT guru stating than rages of weps etc works perfect in TT from years and will be same good in online game, play any from MW games. I just wondring becouse form me is obvious than online multiplayer games are not TT, so TT balance you can throw to trash guys, it not will work same way and it will be obvious when you meet few MW veterans on battlefield, it will realy fast show than few teoreticaly long range weps are useless ..... On movies i see ppl runing directly to close combat, i not see any tactic here, just runing and bumping arround ....

[Mike Silva]

Nawiedzony, on 09 May 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

I just curious if any of TT guru stating than rages of weps etc works perfect in TT from years and will be same good in online game, play any from MW games. I just wondring becouse form me is obvious than online multiplayer games are not TT, so TT balance you can throw to trash guys, it not will work same way and it will be obvious when you meet few MW veterans on battlefield, it will realy fast show than few teoreticaly long range weps are useless ..... On movies i see ppl runing directly to close combat, i not see any tactic here, just runing and bumping arround ....

Well that ends this argument.... lets just throw out the rule book and change the name to "BattleBots."

[Mike Silva]

I read that again and it comes across as kinda buttholish. Sorry, it wasn't intended that way, I was going for humor.... I think I missed the mark.