Missile tracking

[Mitchpate]

I gripe'd about this in another thread then figured I'd explain and suggest it and see where it goes.  It's kind of a neat feature.

In Mech4, when you fired tracked missiles they automatically tracked to the area of the mech where the crosshair was when you pulled the trigger.  This allowed you to target specific locations on a mech, for example the "ears" of a Catapult or the dorsal gun on a Marauder.  If the crosshair wasn't on any part of the target then the missiles went for any part of the mech that it could hit, similar to how it does right now in MWLL.  Now this wasn't a guaranteed hit on the target location, it simply gave the missiles something more specific than "that mech."  The smaller the location you were aiming for, the more likely the missiles were to miss, for example the missiles had a pretty good chance of missing the Marauder's dorsal gun (and plowing into the ground) but virtually always hit the side torsos on a Fafnir.

Would it be possible to implement something like this in MWLL?  This could be implemented by adding the Artemis IV FCS to the mod.  Canon states that ATMs already have Artemis and when it's coupled with LRMs it's supposed to increase the accuracy by a pretty wide margin, which would explain the accuracy increase and give both sides missile systems that use it.  Artemis LRMs are more expensive and the FCS adds to the weight of the weapon which would balance it against other missile systems.  With the added weight maybe also have less ammo in the variant as a tradeoff.  Canon also states that indirectly fired Artemis missiles (NARC/TAG) get no accuracy improvements which is also a con that's implementable.

[Cik]

if possible, would love to see it.

[Bobby]

I think if the devs are working on this system, I bet Crysis is giving them hell with debugging. The way the lock works now is extremely similar to how Wars allows you to lock onto vehicles, i.e. tanks, vtols, etc. You lock onto the entire asset (with the exception of the legs at this time because of the way the mechs are setup). I'm pretty sure they'd have to make some major changes to how the assets are recognized in Crysis when obtaining lock. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have to create something entirely from scratch to get it to work right, maybe even including reconfiguring the model to facilitate such changes. Similar to how they have to make major changes to modify hit boxes. Being why armor value reallocation is more frequent than hit box modification.

Just my observational guessing here though... 

[Taemien]

I'd like to see LRMs stay as they are now just with a 10-15% damage boost. This way they'd wreck an assault, but not one shot a light. (Though god forbid if a missile boat non-locks you and fires when you're not looking. Thats almost a 100% hitrate if you don't know they're coming. But that should be a bonus)

In addition I'd like to see Artemis equipped LRMs but make them one size category larger in pod size as well as weigh a bit more. The benefit would be better tracking, similar to ATMs.

[Flyingdebris]

not to knock your idea, cause i do think its a pretty clever idea, but since LRMs see more extreme range use than they do medium range use, due to how easy it is for enemies to slip under the 300m umbrella once they are at med range. and enemies at long range are frequently little more than a dozen pixels on your screen, i'm not sure it would get the kind of use that it did in MW4, where you could still use LRMs in brawling ranges

I'd rather see options for indirect saturation fire for people that want a reason to fire LRMs but can't get a clear LOS without getting zerg rushed.

[Mitchpate]

enemies at long range are frequently little more than a dozen pixels on your screen

I don't mean to sound like an ass but you know you can zoom in, right?  Getting direct LOS missile locks at >850m is pretty easy.

in MW4, where you could still use LRMs in brawling ranges

Not really.  At <300m hitbox scattering and splashing makes LRMs effectively useless.  Not to mention there's still minimum range code floating around in the game and sometimes at <150m they don't even do damage.

[TwinkleToes]

Mitchplate you don't sound mean, but you have to understand that many players get 30fps or less.  Those who don't have the twitch shooter skill to keep the reticule on target in combination of lag, low fps, stuttering, it can be quite hard for some to get a lock at 850m+

[Mekabuser=12thVR=]

can we track down all the "pilots" who just love to use the mk2 arrow cruise ship?
oh wait, missle, tracking... oh damn... 


I hate that f.....ng mech and everyone who uses one.   

[AlfalphaCat]

Mitchplate you don't sound mean, but you have to understand that many players get 30fps or less.  Those who don't have the twitch shooter skill to keep the reticule on target in combination of lag, low fps, stuttering, it can be quite hard for some to get a lock at 850m+

Really Twinkly?  When was the last time you used LRMs?  It isn't hard, even with a sub-par machine running the game.  You don't even have to keep the reticule on the target after you initiate the lock, you can move it all over as long as it doesn't stray too far, but there is a very wide margin.

A post like that makes me wonder what you been smokin', bra!

[Kelmola]

can we track down all the "pilots" who just love to use the mk2 arrow cruise ship?
oh wait, missle, tracking... oh damn... 

I hate that f.....ng mech and everyone who uses one.   

Been using that on that TOS server quite a lot lately. Maybe I will have to try it on other servers too

[~SJ~ Atlessa]

You don't even have to keep the reticule on the target after you initiate the lock, [...]

THIS is exactly the problem I (and others with low FPS I assume) am having with missile locks at long ranges:
You need to bring your crosshair ON target before the missile even begins to lock on, which is quite near impossible with fast moving targets at 850m+ when you got only 15fps.  Add to that a little bit of lag, and LRMs become useless at those ranges.

[(TLL) Heretic]

Problem with the OPs request is that it has 2 problems:

1)SSRMs, SRMs & MRMs can already be used to pick components off easily (you lead the missiles into the component); sure not 100% of the missiles will hit the component you are aiming for, but you'll get a good 30-80% hitting that component depending on circumstances. So this thread seems to be just about ATMs and LRMs and not a global missile tracking issue/suggestion.

2) ATMs and LRMs in CBT when they hit at all then use a scatter damage chart (spread of damage from these weapons is a fundamental behaviour of that weapon)...ERGO MW4s LRMs were designed on crack and should NOT be copied by MWLL in any way (we already have the MW4 style piss-stream salvo versus the canonical MW3 style swarm-cloud launch..and that's enough MW4 in MWLL for me!).


Personally I think we need a revamp of and ECM/LRM behaviour and things will be fine, I'd like to see:

A) Make Lock-on time a constant (say 3 seconds), a salvo launched before full lock will have it's Base spread increased proportionally (thus more misses).

B) Active/Passive Sensors & GECM do NOT effect lock-on time, instead they effect the base accuracy of the LRMs, therefore if you are active and without GECM then most of the salvo will hit (a similar spread to what we have now), with GECM running active many missiles will miss as their spread is increased, or they fail to track on launch (some from the salvo spinning away unlocked and simulating the GECMs interference effect).

C) AECM acts like active GECM for everyone within the Bubble, except the AECM user who has no anti-LRM benefit.

D) GECMs sensor reduction effect is toned down or removed completely (GECM is just too damn useful to be good for gameplay as is, we have Passive and BHP/BAP for ninja-playstlye, GECM would be on every 'mech I built it's such a massive benefit for low tonnage cost, BHP/BAP I would use situationally, but GECM as currently implimented I would use always....so it's certainly needs some work!).

TBH though, I'm pretty sure that this sort of thing is on the Dev-Radar, and personally I think we could use a Heat system/Coolant revamp/update before anything else (sick of arseholes cheesing it in NovaCats/Mad Bs spamming coolant....it's as boring and joyless as the new 1200m Clan Uber-ArrowIV Cheese aka: "Pointless random buff ruins gameplay...more at 11!")  ).

This close to an update we are just better wainting and seeing what Soon^tm brings.

[Flyingdebris]

enemies at long range are frequently little more than a dozen pixels on your screen

I don't mean to sound like an ass but you know you can zoom in, right?  Getting direct LOS missile locks at >850m is pretty easy.

in MW4, where you could still use LRMs in brawling ranges

Not really.  At <300m hitbox scattering and splashing makes LRMs effectively useless.  Not to mention there's still minimum range code floating around in the game and sometimes at <150m they don't even do damage.

We must be playing different games then, cause even when zoomed in on distant targets, getting a missile lock on a moving vehicle is usually a matter of, "dammit crosshairs stay on target, stupid slip slidey hovercraft" "and godammit LOCK ON, LOCK ON, LOCK ON, WHY WON'T YOU LOCK ON, AH DAMMIT HE MOVED BEHIND THAT BOULDER, SHIT!"  I don't ever remember having any fight involving LRMs where I had the luxury of focusing on any particular location as much as simply getting a lock so i can launch all them missiles down range and bug out before getting shot.  Streak SRMs though, thats another matter.

[Mitchpate]

So this thread seems to be just about ATMs and LRMs and not a global missile tracking issue/suggestion.

The suggestion was that artemis be used to determine which launchers use this feature.  That would limit them solely to A-LRMs and ATMs.

2) ATMs and LRMs in CBT when they hit at all then use a scatter damage chart (spread of damage from these weapons is a fundamental behaviour of that weapon)...ERGO MW4s LRMs were designed on crack and should NOT be copied by MWLL in any way (we already have the MW4 style piss-stream salvo versus the canonical MW3 style swarm-cloud launch..and that's enough MW4 in MWLL for me!).

MW4 also scattered damage, just not to the extent that CBT mandates.  Around 20% of the overall salvo damage is scattered.  And you can't really blame MW4 for the "streaming" as MW2 did it as well.  Truth be told we don't know what CBT mandates for missiles as when you fire a PPC, laser, gauss, and artillery they all apparently hit at the same time.

We must be playing different games then, cause even when zoomed in on distant targets, getting a missile lock on a moving vehicle is usually a matter of, "dammit crosshairs stay on target, stupid slip slidey hovercraft" "and godammit LOCK ON, LOCK ON, LOCK ON, WHY WON'T YOU LOCK ON, AH DAMMIT HE MOVED BEHIND THAT BOULDER, SHIT!"  I don't ever remember having any fight involving LRMs where I had the luxury of focusing on any particular location as much as simply getting a lock so i can launch all them missiles down range and bug out before getting shot.  Streak SRMs though, thats another matter.

Oh I get the same thing when there's heavy ECM usage but I never have a problem actually keeping the crosshair on target, it's more a problem of actually getting a lock on the target.

Part of my suggestion was to implement all, or most, of the artemis buff package.  In previous MW games that included quicker lock-on times.  When coupled with BAP it would signficantly reduce lock-on times, probably to the point of being overpowered, but that could be balanced by the devs.

[sleepysheep]

enemies at long range are frequently little more than a dozen pixels on your screen

I don't mean to sound like an ass but you know you can zoom in, right?  Getting direct LOS missile locks at >850m is pretty easy.

in MW4, where you could still use LRMs in brawling ranges

Not really.  At <300m hitbox scattering and splashing makes LRMs effectively useless.  Not to mention there's still minimum range code floating around in the game and sometimes at <150m they don't even do damage.

We must be playing different games then, cause even when zoomed in on distant targets, getting a missile lock on a moving vehicle is usually a matter of, "dammit crosshairs stay on target, stupid slip slidey hovercraft" "and godammit LOCK ON, LOCK ON, LOCK ON, WHY WON'T YOU LOCK ON, AH DAMMIT HE MOVED BEHIND THAT BOULDER, SHIT!"  I don't ever remember having any fight involving LRMs where I had the luxury of focusing on any particular location as much as simply getting a lock so i can launch all them missiles down range and bug out before getting shot.  Streak SRMs though, thats another matter.

Learn to croutch

But your problem seems to be getting a lock, not keeping the cursor on the target, which anyone who's used LRMS can agree is a royal pain in the behind. The amount of times I've flicked onto someone for .5second and then have the cursor waving around the screen when I got knocked by chain CERPPC, yet still get a lock and fire....Well it happens way too often

Also having it hit the location where you lock, doesn't really matter 99% of the time, since most people are just sodding lucky to get a lock in the first place It's just a bonus for people who do use LRMS effectivly.

And SRMS SOOOOO need this more