21 replies to this topic

[Theevenger]

Is it my imagination or can you do this? It sure seemed like I blew up a bunch of missiles in flight with my lasers. I do run an AMS, but I don't think it was that.

[Tennex]

better yet. with machineguns. would make them a lot less useless.

i brought something like this up before, but someone made a good point about how hard it would be with the current netcode.


it would add an active/skillbased element to avoiding LRM damage. the current LRM shoot and forget is not fun for the person pressing the button or the person being shot.

Another way to make LRM fire more interactive/fun on the receiving end is manual AMS fire.

Edited by Tennex, 03 January 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[Eddrick]

Laser Anti-missle system is something that is in some of the other MechWarrior/BattleTech game.

I can't wait for it.

[darkfall13]

Tennex, on 03 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

better yet. with machineguns. would make them a lot less useless.

i brought something like this up before, but someone made a good point about how hard it would be with the current netcode.


it would add an active/skillbased element to avoiding LRM damage. the current LRM shoot and forget is not fun for the person pressing the button or the person being shot.

But it isn't even shoot and forget and don't get me started on LOS my poor LRMs

[Bluescuba]

Unfortunately you were imagining it.

No current weapon can knock down incoming missiles. Only AMS works against them, however, if you are at extreme range you can back up and the missile will self destruct.

[Jakob Knight]

Also, there are other ways of dealing with LRMs. No need to add more penalties to a weapon system already made next to unusable by ECM and high speed (not to mention terrain and range). SRMs aren't in flight long enough for you to have any chance of lasering them down (even AMS can't do much).

Besides, you'd have to have the missiles in range of your lasers to hit them, which means they are already so close you won't get more than one or two before they hit you (and if you are firing on them, then you can't be behind cover).

[Irvine]

darkfall13, on 03 January 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

But it isn't even shoot and forget and don't get me started on LOS my poor LRMs

Sir you have an awesome SIG

[BerryChunks]

Tennex, on 03 January 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

better yet. with machineguns. would make them a lot less useless.

i brought something like this up before, but someone made a good point about how hard it would be with the current netcode.


it would add an active/skillbased element to avoiding LRM damage. the current LRM shoot and forget is not fun for the person pressing the button or the person being shot.

Another way to make LRM fire more interactive/fun on the receiving end is manual AMS fire.

between AMS, ECM, and implementing yet another way to kill missiles, it'd be even LESS fun for people pulling the trigger.

[Mikhalio]

Have you ever tried to hit a missile with a laser ? Furthermore, do you know how much extra code it would require to render each collision detection per missile ?

Stupid idea. Think before you post.

[Felix]

Mikhalio, on 03 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Have you ever tried to hit a missile with a laser ? Furthermore, do you know how much extra code it would require to render each collision detection per missile ?

Stupid idea. Think before you post.

I believe they already do track per missile as some missiles while hit cover and some wont

[Roland]

Mikhalio, on 03 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Have you ever tried to hit a missile with a laser ?

Northrop Grumman did.
Also, Laser AMS actually exists in Battletech.

Mikhalio, on 03 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Furthermore, do you know how much extra code it would require to render each collision detection per missile ?

Considering they are doing this now, I'd guess the amount of "Extra code" (lolz) would be fairly minimal. It could, instead, be an issue of processing power required to do the hit detections on missiles, although I'm not sure this is the case either.

Mikhalio, on 03 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Think before you post.

Always good advice.

[Mikhalio]

I'm not going to chain post, but think a bit harder about what you posted. Check out the SDI program'*****/lead time ratio the solid state beam had and the simulation control variables behind that test sum. Now think about doing that same test from a walking platform. Furthermore the NGT test was done on controlled conditions, vs one missile. We are talking about a swarm, in multi-fire testing there was a 80% failure rate to hit the target. Do a bit more google fu before you throw random press releases up and distract people.

No, they do not; the are doing basic vector simulations.You do not control the AMS beams, it is simply a shell of fire triggers and a probability to hit generator mixed with a FX emitting random fack from the top of your mech.
This is how the AMS system works, it is on a different set of code than that which would require the game to calculate.

If you have not bothered to look at the code, do not spew misinformation which will only confuse pug players further about game mechanics.

As for your third point. There is some deep irony there.

Edited by Mikhalio, 03 January 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[pedropars]

Ok sorry if i am doing a completely stupid question now but i know there is an Laser Anti Missile System,so if a laser can be used to take out missiles why cant we just use our normal lasers to take missiles out? Is there anything in the lore that makes it impossible for us to do so?

[Roland]

Quote

I'm not going to chain post, but think a bit harder about what you posted.

Heh, you mean the post where I pointed out that the system you describe as impossible was actually operationally fielded, in the real world, years ago?

Quote

Check out the SDI program

The strategic defense initiative was actually totally feasible, and developed a number of potential solutions. However, the largest issues preventing missile defense on that level actually focused on having to deal with other complexities.. such as having ICBM's deploy a large number of dummy targets and overwhelming an anti missile defense system.

Also, SDI was dealing with shooting down strategic ballistic missiles... which are moving at incredibly fast, supersonic speeds, through low orbit. Shooting down tactical missiles is an easier issue... Shooting down the type of slow moving rockets seen in Mechwarrior is actually pretty trivial.

In addition to the example of the THEL I presented above, there are also examples like the Boeing YAL-1. Again dude.. these things actually already exist, in the real world.

Finally... we're talking about a computer game with giant stompy robots. Arguing "That's not realistic" is silly... It just happens to be that, in this specific case, it actually it totally realistic. The THEL that NG deployed in Israel shot down multiple simultaneously fired mortar shells, and weapons that were fired by actual enemy troops.



Seriously though... the real point you need to take away from this, even if you want to continue pretending that shooting down rockets with lasers isn't something we can already do today...
In a game with giant stompy robots, that are carried around the galaxy by space ships that can travel faster than light, and shoot giant lightning balls at each other... saying that shooting missiles with lasers is impossible makes you sound silly.

Quote

You really have no idea how the AMS system works, but it is on a different set of code than that which would require the game to calculate. If you have not bothered to look at the code, do not spew misinformation which will only confuse pug players further about game mechanics.

err... and you have looked at PGI's source code?
This is a totally honest question... I, of course, have not seen any of PGI's source code. I was unaware that you worked as a developer for PGI. If that's the case, certainly I would have to defer to your first hand knowledge of the architecture of their system.

Quote

As for your third point. There is some deep irony there.

Indeed, that's why I pointed it out to you.

[Mikhalio]

I'll explain this to you from a simple perspective:

Imagine you are in a bus.
Now imagine you are standing in a bus, and that bus is going over an unpaved field.
Now imagine that bus is going 80 km/h.
You are trying to aim a laser pointer, at an object moving 480 km/h towards you. And somehow, you must identify this little object when it is 1 km away from you on the X axis, and about 160 m above your head, flying towards your head.

Take aim, and tell me if you hit this object, oh yes, and the tube is 30 cm in diameter.

Understand how stupid this idea is now ?

[Craftyman]

I made a similar thread a few weeks ago and I think its an awesome idea. The lrms are quite slow and would be easy to rake with laser fire as a defensive measure.

[Mikhalio]

Look, you can quote press releases and post a wall of text. I'm not going to bother arguing a moot point.

We are not talking about airplanes on the air where they can modulate their angle and Y-axis drift, we are talking about logistical targeting computers, trying to hit and track moving targets where one object is limited to X,Y positioning, while moving themselves and being able to test if they hit/ or miss to multiple swarms of objects in a video game where this level of rendering is beyond nearly all but the top 1% players. This level of rendering is beyond even most calculation engines, let alone assuming for latency and engine issues.
PGI barely can keep the game stable when running 16v16, how do you think it will work when you have 8v8, each firing 64 LRM's at a time, 8x8x64 = ?

Secondly, this system was not designed for battle implementation. If you read deeper into the SDI you will know exactly why what he is proposing is an impossible feat, from both a math perspective and a logistics problem.

Now seriously, give it up; its a bad idea. After 3 posts, if you can not see how bad it is then I really can't help you. But you may wish to consult other games that have tried mulch-variate calculations and how this handles under peak server stress Google EvE's adventures in ECCW and counter-missile systems. This should get you at least some sort of semblance of a starting point before you begin adhoc design theorycrafting.

Edited by Mikhalio, 03 January 2013 - 09:35 PM.

[Roland]

Mikhalio, on 03 January 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

I'll explain this to you from a simple perspective:

Imagine you are in a bus.
Now imagine you are standing in a bus, and that bus is going over an unpaved field.
Now imagine that bus is going 80 km/h.
You are trying to aim a laser pointer, at an object moving 480 km/h towards you. And somehow, you must identify this little object when it is 1 km away from you on the X axis, and about 160 m above your head, flying towards your head.

Take aim, and tell me if you hit this object, oh yes, and the tube is 30 cm in diameter.

Understand how stupid this idea is now ?

Ok, I'm with you. But then imagine this:
You are in the future.
You are on a space ship, that flies around the galaxy faster than the speed of light.
The space ship launches another space ship, which then lands on another planet.
You are driving a giant robot, and you get out of that space ship, and shoot other giant robots.

And then one of those guys in the other giant robots, who is shooting laser beams and lightning bolts out of his giant robot, is like, "HEY, THAT ONE LASER SHOOTING A MISSILE ISN'T REALISTIC!"

[Mikhalio]

Roland, on 03 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

Ok, I'm with you. But then imagine this:
You are in the future.
You are on a space ship, that flies around the galaxy faster than the speed of light.
The space ship launches another space ship, which then lands on another planet.
You are driving a giant robot, and you get out of that space ship, and shoot other giant robots.

And then one of those guys in the other giant robots, who is shooting laser beams and lightning bolts out of his giant robot, is like, "HEY, THAT ONE LASER SHOOTING A MISSILE ISN'T REALISTIC!"

+1 post. Because you caught me before I could facepalm again.

Look, I am not going to reply to any of that beyond saying: Quantum Computing.

Seriously, stop posting. None of what you quoted is even related to the logistics needed to explain the missile problem from a target optimization and calculation problem in your mystical game of neo-facist feudal space robots.

Furthermore what does that have anything to do with justifying the near tripling the computations required by the client machines over a Pubbie's stupidity to not a.) use strategic cover, b.) use a flack shield; both legitimate defenses against artillery barrages that have worked for ages ? (5 BC anyone, Alexandria ?)

Conversation as far as I'm considered is over.

Edited by Mikhalio, 03 January 2013 - 09:41 PM.

[Roland]

So, Mikhalio, do you actually develop software for PGI? It seems kind of weird that you would, but then have bought a founders' pack, instead of sporting the PGI tags that the other PGI developers have.

But your previous statement seemed to suggest that you did. Certainly, if you have the first hand knowledge that you alluded to, then I have to defer to your expertise regarding how their existing modeling of missiles in game works.