8 replies to this topic

[Skyfaller]

Since this game copies so much from world of tanks, why not use their top-down view for indirect fire...but with MWO twist to it?


1- Increase LRM missile range to 2km. This makes the MRMs that come in the future have their niche.

2- Use the battlegrid as the top-down view.

3- LRM can only be fired in battlegrid view or with direct line of sight. Missile will not lock or keep lock in cockpit view if there is no LOS.

4- Missiles fired from battlegrid view behave differently from those fired in cockpit LOS view.

a- Battlegrid firing mode:

Player clicks target contact or location on battlegrid. Computer picks up coordinates and creates a 20m x 20m square. LRMs fire in wide spread clusters that will hit in random in that 20m x 20m square.

LRMs fired in battlegrid mode have a steeper angle of descent than LOS fired LRMs.

b- LOS firing mode:

Player has target in sight, locks it and fires. must keep lock like they currently do. LRMs fired in this mode fly at half-height than current mode and impact the target as they currently do (they dont hit on a 20m x 20m square.

5- Target players do not get missile warning when missiles are fired in battlegrid mode since there is no 'locking' taking place.

6- LRM ammo changes:

a- Increase number of missiles fired per volley per launcher. Triple them.
b- Triple ammo per ton.
c- Reduce damage per missile so that there is no actual change than to what it is now if the entire missile spread hits a mech.

*** we just need to increase the number of missiles in the air to make battlegrid fire mode worth using.


7- Artemis effects: Battlegrid fire mode = area hit shrunk to 10mx10m, LOS mode= missiles pack up tight before impact like they do now.


...and of course, LRMs should not be causing the black screen bug nor rock the mech left and right... if anything just make them shake like a PPC or Gauss hit does and slow the mech down from the kinetic impact.


The result: LRM indirect fire becomes an area-fire support weapon or a direct line of sight damage weapon.

As indirect fire it can hit any number of targets randomly in the 20m x 20m square which makes it useful for suppression and to fire on expected enemy locations and flush them out or damage them by guessing location.


The best thing is, this is what has been constantly suggested to world of tanks as a fix for artillery. An area effect weapon rather than a pinpoint OMFG damage weapon. Unlike WOT, MWO has the ability to make this solution happen. All the things needed for it, including the NEED for it, are there.

Edited by Skyfaller, 02 December 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[Oppresor]

Skyfaller, on 02 December 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Battlegrid firing mode:

Player clicks target contact or location on battlegrid. Computer picks up coordinates and creates a 20m x 20m square. LRMs fire in wide spread clusters that will hit in random in that 20m x 20m square.

LRMs fired in battlegrid mode have a steeper angle of descent than LOS fired LRMs.

This is a great idea, it uses the battlegrid in a similar way to that seen in Total Annihilation (Guardian Turrets) or Dune II (Death Hand). I really like the idea of going high angle, this would look spectacular if the LRM's had to clear a hillside on their way to the target area. It may also be possible later, to introduce a cresting effect for a few rounds based on defective propellant.

The only thing that I would change would be the spread area. If used in an Artillery role the default sheath pattern is 200m x 200m. This would introduce the need to take into account the possibility of friendly fire.

One benefit of this mode would be that because the LRM's are being used without a target lock, the enemy ECM systems would be totally ineffective. The only system would would work, would be AMS.

[Willie Sauerland]

The problem with the battle grid idea is the following - by looking at the battle grid, you are not looking at what is around you. You would have to be in a pretty secure spot to actually use the battle map, which given the small maps we currently have is pretty difficult. This is the first major issue I see with this.

Would this mean a LRM 10 would be renamed to LRM 30? Wouldn't this mean the physical launchers would have to be much larger than they are now or would the missiles be smaller? Would these 30 missiles launched from a LRM 10 have the same amount of damage as they currently do? Some see the LRMs now as over powered and I have to wonder how this would work in the balance of things.

Second, the LRMs using the battlegrid system are not behaving like canon LRMs. I am trying to overlook this issue since I know this is a completely different game from the TT. However, while I find this disturbing, I'm willing to look at it rationally. RIght now, given the questions, I don't see how it can really be implemented...

[White Bear 84]

Lets add third person view too.

[FrostCollar]

I'm not saying that I'm against artillery style missiles, but I think LRMs shouldn't be that weapon.

However, we have another option: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arrow_IV

[Skyfaller]

Oppresor, on 02 December 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

The only thing that I would change would be the spread area. If used in an Artillery role the default sheath pattern is 200m x 200m. This would introduce the need to take into account the possibility of friendly fire.

The limiting factor is the amount of missiles hitting the area. An LRM 15 fires about 15 missiles if im not mistaken. Quad LRM 15 would be 60 missiles. If you triple that it'd be 180 missiles hitting the 20x20m (=400m) area. That's not much damage if they all land evenly spaced out. Thats where the randomness comes in.

Perhaps the area could be reduced depending on effectiveness..the devs would need to tweak that.

Quote

One benefit of this mode would be that because the LRM's are being used without a target lock, the enemy ECM systems would be totally ineffective. The only system would would work, would be AMS.

Precisely why this is the LRM's indirect fire mode.

Willie Sauerland, on 02 December 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

The problem with the battle grid idea is the following - by looking at the battle grid, you are not looking at what is around you. You would have to be in a pretty secure spot to actually use the battle map, which given the small maps we currently have is pretty difficult. This is the first major issue I see with this.

Thats why it is indirect fire. You're not going to be running around tossing missiles at an area via battlegrid. Unlike the LOS firing mode, you can set the battlegrid firing coordinates, fire and close battlegrid and move. The missiles will fly themselves to the coordinates.

Quote

Would this mean a LRM 10 would be renamed to LRM 30? Wouldn't this mean the physical launchers would have to be much larger than they are now or would the missiles be smaller? Would these 30 missiles launched from a LRM 10 have the same amount of damage as they currently do? Some see the LRMs now as over powered and I have to wonder how this would work in the balance of things.

They'd be firing more missiles but the damage total all those missiles do remains the same. In essence, each missile does 3 times less damage than they do now. The tradeoff? More missiles= higher chance to hit..or miss.

Quote

Second, the LRMs using the battlegrid system are not behaving like canon LRMs. I am trying to overlook this issue since I know this is a completely different game from the TT. However, while I find this disturbing, I'm willing to look at it rationally. RIght now, given the questions, I don't see how it can really be implemented...

They tossed 'canon' out the window a long time ago. If anything, this is a more accurate representation of TT missile launching than FPS. You still have LOS firing mode ..the battlegrid simply permits blind fire saturation fire just like the TT rules permit.

[Skyfaller]

FrostCollar, on 02 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'm not saying that I'm against artillery style missiles, but I think LRMs shouldn't be that weapon.

However, we have another option: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arrow_IV

Yes just like that. Arrow IV could be a guidance system rather than a launcher system or ammo in MWO. That way the LRM's could have both functions. Arrow4 as a launcher in this game would be mighty gimp to make a support build with due to the FPS nature...but if you combine the LRM and Arrow4 together.. you get what I'm proposing.

[Suicidal Idiot]

FrostCollar, on 02 December 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'm not saying that I'm against artillery style missiles, but I think LRMs shouldn't be that weapon.

However, we have another option: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arrow_IV

My knee twinges every time I see that link.

[Asmudius Heng]

I think this is what artillery should do from a command module.

I think LRMs should fire in two modes.

1. If you do not have direct line of sight the missiles arc up very high and come down vertical almost to hit people behind cover - but their spread should be quite bad so the damage is minimal, but still significant. You rely on our spotter for this and do not need to expose yourself- trade off.

2. If you have direct LoS to the target the LRMs fly in a flatter arm right at them with a tight spread so the damage is much more, but cover will negate it more and you need to expose yourself to return fire - trade off.

Pro version - allow pilot to choose as you might want to indirect fore on someone in LoS but know they are going to move into cover. You get the worse of both worlds - exposing yourself and minimal dmaage but at least your missiles will not be watsed.

Map based artillery - leave that to command modules - but an excellent idea that the devs seemed to hint at long long ago. Worked great in battlefield games and good for dislodging campers or softening them up before a charge.