Forums » Suggestions
Target-lock at missiles/rockets
As the subject says, this is another suggestion (sorry if someone has said it before).
At the moment missiles and rockets can't be 'locked up' as a target, and they cant shot down (perhaps i am just a stupid idiot, i have tried it and it didn't work ;-)
It would be nice if you could try to hit a missile with your tachyons, or if you use one of your proximity-missiles as a counter-measure.
This also could stop the people yelling "the missiles're way to strong" "cant dodge, im dead". Just shoot them down!
At the moment missiles and rockets can't be 'locked up' as a target, and they cant shot down (perhaps i am just a stupid idiot, i have tried it and it didn't work ;-)
It would be nice if you could try to hit a missile with your tachyons, or if you use one of your proximity-missiles as a counter-measure.
This also could stop the people yelling "the missiles're way to strong" "cant dodge, im dead". Just shoot them down!
Well, in a heated battle with swarmers flying everywhere, it could be a bit tough to target a pilot when there is a cloud of missiles in his way. Even if it were possible I think the chances of hitting a tiny little missile while trying to simultaneously dodge would be more luck than skill. Even if your name is Eldrad :P.
I think it would be better to require a target lock before firing homers of any kind. That way you can't just hit "x" and fire away. You have to keep your nose near their reticule for a second or two.
I think it would be better to require a target lock before firing homers of any kind. That way you can't just hit "x" and fire away. You have to keep your nose near their reticule for a second or two.
Kinda like the X-Wing series, you had to keep your reticle on target for (was it) 10 seconds for lock-on. If you fired before you got a solid lock, the missile would suffer decreased speed and accuracy. If an opponent locked on to you, the missile that they fired could be selected and shot down. If I remember correctly, if you moved your reticle off the target, then the longer you were off, the longer you'd have to keep it on to reacquire. If you accidentally broke lock and got back on within a second, you might simply continue where you left off (in the lock-on process), but if you were off for several seconds, you'd have to start again.
But that was the X-Wing games, I don't know how easy it'd be to keep a reticle on a wildly evading target for 10 seconds, but a lock on period would make it more difficult to employ seeker missiles. And the ability to shoot down missiles in flight will also make it easier to survive a missile battle.
That's one method of balancing missile usage. Another method that I can think of stems from the three of the most common missiles in use today, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
The early AIM-9 Sidewinders could only be used from behind the target (where the engines put out large heat sources), and were easily distracted by flares, as well as the largest heat source available, the sun. Modern AIM-9M Sidewinders are sensitive enough to be able to lock on to the sun glinting off of the plane, so they can be employed even if the engines aren't in view. They're harder to evade, and decoy. As for usage in the game, the stronger the heat source available, the stronger the lock the missile can achieve. The stronger the lock, the harder it is to decoy with flares. So if someone takes a shot from medium range (say 400-500 meters) from directly behind a Ragnarok trying to boost away, the Ragnarok would be totally unable to decoy the missile. They they take the shot from long range in front of a Centurion, the Centurion would most likely survive by shooting out flares.
And then you have missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow radar guided missile. If I remember correctly, the earlier versions (maybe even the latest Sparrow III) don't have radar emitters, only a receiver, so it must be guided to its target by the mothership's radar. Lock-on time is short, but the player must keep the target within a narrow cone (denoted by a circle on the HUD centered on the heading indicator) until the missile hits the target. If the player breaks lock, the missile goes "dumb" and flies straight. Not only that, but electronic jammers and chaff increase chances that the missile will miss the target. Maybe the Sparrow has a short range radar and must be guided to a certain range? I can't remember, but I like the idea of having to basically guide the missile in yourself. The AIM-7s really aren't that great, so that's why the AMRAAM was developed.
And then you have missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. This missile has an onboard radar, but has two firing modes. One mode, the pilot guides the missile into terminal range and the internal radar takes over. the other mode, the missile relies only on its onboard radar, but I think the accuracy degrades. This missile in a game sense, is more expensive, but is harder to decoy. Again, electronic jammers and chaff can distract the missile, but it's harder.
But that was the X-Wing games, I don't know how easy it'd be to keep a reticle on a wildly evading target for 10 seconds, but a lock on period would make it more difficult to employ seeker missiles. And the ability to shoot down missiles in flight will also make it easier to survive a missile battle.
That's one method of balancing missile usage. Another method that I can think of stems from the three of the most common missiles in use today, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
The early AIM-9 Sidewinders could only be used from behind the target (where the engines put out large heat sources), and were easily distracted by flares, as well as the largest heat source available, the sun. Modern AIM-9M Sidewinders are sensitive enough to be able to lock on to the sun glinting off of the plane, so they can be employed even if the engines aren't in view. They're harder to evade, and decoy. As for usage in the game, the stronger the heat source available, the stronger the lock the missile can achieve. The stronger the lock, the harder it is to decoy with flares. So if someone takes a shot from medium range (say 400-500 meters) from directly behind a Ragnarok trying to boost away, the Ragnarok would be totally unable to decoy the missile. They they take the shot from long range in front of a Centurion, the Centurion would most likely survive by shooting out flares.
And then you have missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow radar guided missile. If I remember correctly, the earlier versions (maybe even the latest Sparrow III) don't have radar emitters, only a receiver, so it must be guided to its target by the mothership's radar. Lock-on time is short, but the player must keep the target within a narrow cone (denoted by a circle on the HUD centered on the heading indicator) until the missile hits the target. If the player breaks lock, the missile goes "dumb" and flies straight. Not only that, but electronic jammers and chaff increase chances that the missile will miss the target. Maybe the Sparrow has a short range radar and must be guided to a certain range? I can't remember, but I like the idea of having to basically guide the missile in yourself. The AIM-7s really aren't that great, so that's why the AMRAAM was developed.
And then you have missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. This missile has an onboard radar, but has two firing modes. One mode, the pilot guides the missile into terminal range and the internal radar takes over. the other mode, the missile relies only on its onboard radar, but I think the accuracy degrades. This missile in a game sense, is more expensive, but is harder to decoy. Again, electronic jammers and chaff can distract the missile, but it's harder.
I think it's pretty cool. It would make sense to have yellowjackets, stingrays and other fighter type missile systems be guided by something like the AIM-7 you described. Keep the target in a narrow cone.
Then more intermediate stuff like geminis would rely on the AIM-9 system where you would need to get a good target lock, either by focusing the reticule for a while or firing from a close range, before firing if you want it to hit.
Then the more bomber type missile systems like the swarms would use the AIM-120 type thing where they're mostly self-guided.
This way, bombers get a good advantage by employing homers and bombers become an important part of a battle group because they can carry weapons like these. Fighters won't get the uber homers because their maneuverability means they don't need 'em.
But, unfortunately, this would all require a major reworking of the homer's tracking code. Have to develop a seperate code for each type and on top of that have to make them relatively complicated. Tough problem to solve here.
Then more intermediate stuff like geminis would rely on the AIM-9 system where you would need to get a good target lock, either by focusing the reticule for a while or firing from a close range, before firing if you want it to hit.
Then the more bomber type missile systems like the swarms would use the AIM-120 type thing where they're mostly self-guided.
This way, bombers get a good advantage by employing homers and bombers become an important part of a battle group because they can carry weapons like these. Fighters won't get the uber homers because their maneuverability means they don't need 'em.
But, unfortunately, this would all require a major reworking of the homer's tracking code. Have to develop a seperate code for each type and on top of that have to make them relatively complicated. Tough problem to solve here.
I'm bumping this because I think this is my best missile balance idea (to date), and so people add to this thread rather than starting bunches of new ones.
Missile lock sounds attractive BUT, from someone who has only used Stingrays and had them outrun (90 m/s isn't that fast) and out lasted (20 seconds of thrust isn't that long) I think it makes you consider when and how you use them. I can imagine that an easy to use homing missile with longer thrust and/or faster flight would be a little too easy.
Right, people get away from them. But people have to disengage and run away to do it. Before the new homing missle tweaks (I mean 1.0.8, haven't tried them in 9 yet), homers were minor distractions that could be dodged while you still engaged the target - but you did have to dodge, if barely. 1.0.8 turned them into things you had to run away from and stop fighting. Maybe 1.0.9 turned them into a happy medium. This suggestion would apply more to the 1.0.8 type homers than those that came before.
Bump again.
I keep hearing the same arguments retread over and over again ad nauseum. Missiles are too smart. My favorite rocket isn't as effective anymore. We should dumb the missiles back to what they were before, and give flares and other countermeasures.
Again, this is (IMHO) the most fair solution for everyone. There are various types of countermeasures, each for defeating different types of missiles. Heat-seeking missiles are the cheapest missiles available, and require a great deal of skill on the operator's part to use effectively. Radar-guided missiles come in two varieties. One is inexpensive, carries a powerful warhead, and requires the operator to keep the target in the reticle until impact. The other is expensive, carries a less powerful warhead, but aside from a short lock-on period, is essentially fire-and-forget. Countermeasures come in flares, chaff, and electronic jammers. Flares are only effective against heat-seekers, and are more effective if the missile is launched at a great distance from the target (the flare creates a decoy target, and the farther away the missile is launched, the more likely it'll be decoyed). Chaff and electronic jammers are effective against radar guided missiles. Chaff is basically the flare for radar (okay, not in real life, but for our intents and purposes, the chaff creates decoy targets, and the farther away the missile is launched, the more likely it'll be decoyed). Electronic jammers narrow the lock-on window, requiring the launching ship's pilot to keep his target closer to the center of the reticle.
This requires the person shooting the missile to actually have to work to get the missile to the target, and the target has tools at its disposal to decoy the missile, although they're not 100% effective, and the target is also required to have a certain amount of skill to be able to try to evade in the event that the countermeasures aren't able to decoy the missile.
I understand that this would probably involve a substantial rewrite to the missile code, but I feel that the improvement to the gameplay would possibly be significant enough to offset it. Easy for me to say seeing as it's not me doing the coding, but I hope that this gets somewhere.
I keep hearing the same arguments retread over and over again ad nauseum. Missiles are too smart. My favorite rocket isn't as effective anymore. We should dumb the missiles back to what they were before, and give flares and other countermeasures.
Again, this is (IMHO) the most fair solution for everyone. There are various types of countermeasures, each for defeating different types of missiles. Heat-seeking missiles are the cheapest missiles available, and require a great deal of skill on the operator's part to use effectively. Radar-guided missiles come in two varieties. One is inexpensive, carries a powerful warhead, and requires the operator to keep the target in the reticle until impact. The other is expensive, carries a less powerful warhead, but aside from a short lock-on period, is essentially fire-and-forget. Countermeasures come in flares, chaff, and electronic jammers. Flares are only effective against heat-seekers, and are more effective if the missile is launched at a great distance from the target (the flare creates a decoy target, and the farther away the missile is launched, the more likely it'll be decoyed). Chaff and electronic jammers are effective against radar guided missiles. Chaff is basically the flare for radar (okay, not in real life, but for our intents and purposes, the chaff creates decoy targets, and the farther away the missile is launched, the more likely it'll be decoyed). Electronic jammers narrow the lock-on window, requiring the launching ship's pilot to keep his target closer to the center of the reticle.
This requires the person shooting the missile to actually have to work to get the missile to the target, and the target has tools at its disposal to decoy the missile, although they're not 100% effective, and the target is also required to have a certain amount of skill to be able to try to evade in the event that the countermeasures aren't able to decoy the missile.
I understand that this would probably involve a substantial rewrite to the missile code, but I feel that the improvement to the gameplay would possibly be significant enough to offset it. Easy for me to say seeing as it's not me doing the coding, but I hope that this gets somewhere.
Another idea might be to lock players from jumping, warping and docking for as long as they have missiles in the air. This would at least stop the "fire all weapons and jump as they hit".