PDA

View Full Version : v1.0 Open Beta AtG AT Missile Splash Damage


Rhino
2013-07-15, 06:30
Hey all,

Another little topic and poll on this change.

In the v1.0 Open Beta, we made Air to Ground (AtG) Anti-Tank (AT) Missiles only significantly damage/destroy armoured vehicles, such as Tanks and APC if they scored a direct hit, while soft targets such as jeeps, trucks and infantry would still get damaged or killed/destroyed by an AtG AT Missile exploding near them.

This is to simulate the missiles real life capabilities, as these missiles have a shaped charge warhead, designed to out all the power of that warhead into one spot in front of it, to penetrate directly though a tanks armour on a direct hit. If this missile hits the ground then 90% of the warheads energy goes directly into the ground, just like if it was trying to dig its way though the tanks armour, instead all it succeeds in doing is digging a massive crater and throwing up some debris which if it hits the armour of a tank or APC, is just going to bounce right off with causing a minor scratch to the paintwork at best, although can kill a person or significantly damage a light armoured vehicle that's very close to the initial explosion.

This change however has sparked up a bit of a debate on if this is the best change for gameplay since in real life, the targeting systems on jets and choppers are far more advanced and can much more easily guarantee a direct hit than we can ingame, and its quite hard for a spotter to get his laser target to "stick" directly on a tank/APC as most of the time they seem to stick a bit off to the side, which means if a missile is locking onto that lase which is slightly off the target, then it will probably miss the target and will only strike next to it.
dSLAvgklofU

On the other side of the argument many players don't want to go back to the old system where a missile can explode 10m from a Tank or APC and destroy it outright with very little skill involved. As you can see in this video below at 1:15 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cklxPjW5skI&feature=player_detailpage#t=75s), the missile detonated miles away from the target after a quick twitch fire after the gunner finally saw it, and still managed to kill it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cklxPjW5skI&feature=player_detailpage#t=75s
cklxPjW5skI

One thing to keep in mind is that the Air to Ground Missiles carried by jets are generally much larger than the ones carried by helicopters, which means they have a bigger splash damage radius, and cause more damage, but can only really be fired at lazed targets. The above damage values in the polls is also as per the smaller AtG Missiles on Choppers such as the Hellfire.


What we (the Devs) are currently thinking (before this poll has gone live) is a slight compromise between the two, rewarding direct hits with a kill as per the v1.0 Open Beta setup (front hit on a tank = burning, rear/top hit = destroyed) but also making these missiles have "some" splash damage when hitting very close to an armoured vehicle, under 5ms, but only doing something like taking off 1/2 the HP of tank, so you need two near misses to kill a Tank or APC, but still killing soft skinned vehicles and infantry with a near miss. This way it still takes skill while also keeping it semi-realistic, more realistic than post releases but also making the survivability of ground forces a bit higher too from before, but still a skilled pilot and gunner with spotters will still have a very powerful tool at their disposal when used right :)

But before we make any changes we thought it would be best to post this poll to see what you, the community think and we will go from there :D

Cheers!

smgunsftw
2013-07-15, 06:56
I agree with the 2 near misses solution, it's balanced, realistic, and efficient. It allows both the vehicle a change to take cover and the gunner to take out his target.

Mongolian_dude
2013-07-15, 12:28
I think it should be a certified kill within 5m, Option 5.

This is to ensure that vehicles which have been successfully lasered are destroyed by homing LZR targeted ATGMs. I witnessed this fail on several occasions during the Beta, where ATGMs detonated when reaching the LZR that was attached to a MBT, leaving it moderately damaged and shaken, but alive nonetheless.
It needs to be a certain kill in this situation.


...mongol...

qubolo
2013-07-15, 12:43
There is an easy fix for that 2 miss near hit, you just fire 10 missiles at once, and they blow shit up wherever its lazed. People do that. in that case you would have to limit the amount of missiles carried by cas helis.

Tarranauha200
2013-07-15, 13:05
3 near misses to kill a tank, 1 to kill/disable APC would be best in my opinion.

Prevtzer
2013-07-15, 13:18
How about this:
-Regular missiles stay as they are in 1.0 beta
-Laser guided missiles have splash damage to compensate for bad targeting system

That would kinda work on both levels, don't you think?

saXoni
2013-07-15, 14:25
How about this:
-Regular missiles stay as they are in 1.0 beta
-Laser guided missiles have splash damage to compensate for bad targeting system

That would kinda work on both levels, don't you think?

I'm guessing that would force the chopper to have e.g. 4 LG and 4 LT as there would be two different types of missiles.

Henrique_Dalben
2013-07-15, 14:31
How about this:
-Regular missiles stay as they are in 1.0 beta
That would kinda work on both levels, don't you think?

I'll assume you meant unguided rockets. And no, they're not OK, those Hydras are almost useless to kill infantry, they should by like in 0.98.

KaB
2013-07-15, 16:14
I'd say little to none. Asking the attack choppers to be steady in order to get armoured vehicles with LG sounds pretty balanced.

Alex6714
2013-07-15, 22:00
I'd say little to none. Asking the attack choppers to be steady in order to get armoured vehicles with LG sounds pretty balanced.

That would be fair, if they could use their real life range advantage against armoured vehicle cannons and AT weapons.

=-=kittykiller
2013-07-16, 01:02
in this poll will we be fiddling the statistics?

i.e. the poll has a clear winner but it seems many more exist in a minority. will we allow the minorities to take over? thats just undemocratic!!!

anyways bitching aside this is the 2nd most popular.
~50% so that it 2 near misses to kill a Tank (less vs APCs)

i dont want one near miss to kill a apc! no freaking way. 8 Guys in a APC nuked just like in 0.98 i dont want this at all. 18 tickets for just staying high.

the way it was in BETA was fine maybe add a little more splash to compensate for no stabilization.

the BF2 engine is about rock paper scissors. PR is loosley based on this.

May i link u to virusilis Videos of CAS on BETA he still dominates not just cuz he is very good but because its so simple to do. Do not make this any easier !!!!

A tank shud require a solid hit. A apc isnt a small tank its a game Dynamic dont ruin it with one near miss kills 8 men. If they want to rush a flag fine let them take a Truck.

(Personally im in favour of a near/far miss disables a truck. so u get a chance to jump out.
all this is moot anyways)

if you just watch virus dominate in the havok . SEE LINK BELOW

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f112-pr-bf2-tales-front/115546-videos-viirusiiselis-gameplay.html

what does it add to the other 48 players per team, . JUST RUINS APC TRANS. IMO APC TRANS NEEDS THIS.

=MeRk= Morbo5131
2013-07-16, 02:05
I voted 25% but I'm happy with any of the top 3 options, preferably minimum splash. Good gunners shouldn't have too much trouble hitting static targets, and the Hellfires are currently devastating against grouped up infantry.

PoisonBill
2013-07-16, 02:31
I think 25%, the missle should scare the tank crewmen or track them. If it's too buggy then go for the bare minimal.

viirusiiseli
2013-07-16, 08:37
In my mind the choice is obvious. Have JET AT missiles kill a vehicle if you hit it in a 5-10 meter radius. This is because it's very hard to get direct hits by firing at a laser. Be it a 2-seater or an A10 it's a slim chance your lase missile hits armor directly.

Have HELI AT missiles kill armored vehicles (APC, TANK, IFV) with direct hits and make quite small but noticeable damage from near misses. This is because it is ridiculously easy to hit a vehicle with helicopter's manually aimed missiles.

yellodeath
2013-07-16, 08:38
needs to be no splash damage, CAS helos need to have a very relegated role, and in .981 it basically does everything and has no problems leading a team to victory even if the armor squads or even INF squads are horrible, it goes against encouraging teamwork and CAS squads are basically free to go roam and kill everything that moves.

Now with no splash damage, intel is extremely important and knowing where your target is , is key to taking it out. The current system basically allows CAS helos to constantly spam hellfires until the armor/target crew is dead, as they can not do anything to counter it besides scream on mumble for friendly cas/AA, which one of which should be nearby if you're smart.

With no splash, armor crews will still be running around like decapitated chickens if they dont have proper defense against CAS helos, but they have a LOT more chance to actually fight back/maneuver/run/call for backup if the enemy gunner has to land a DIRECT hit, as opposed to just spraying and praying (which mind you would not work in real life, you can't fire LGMs in rapid succession like you can in PR)

CAS choppers need to be just that, close air support, not "go anywhere on the map gods of death"

but yeah^^^^ jets should have good splash on their missiles as you can't even dumbfire them(well, single crew missiles like AS10 or whatnot...tornado kedges/brimstones are fine with splash too) so a laze is necessary, whereas a laze for choppers is nice but with a competent crew - completely unnecessary

40mmrain
2013-07-16, 09:33
A slight buff vs unarmoured targets is all. If you cant hit armour directly, aim better.

I agree with virus on the topic of the ASMs fired from jets, theyre much larger and should be splashing like they always did. The utility of the 2 seat fighter bombers was the hyper maneuverable brimstones and equivalent that acted like bombs. The bombs on the fighter bombers are very challenging to use, as they dont guide like the fighter's, so splashing infantry, large targets, or hitting armour while flying at ~1200 speed units diminishes their usefulness.

I'd take the fighter over the fighter-bomber in 1.0, it's ground attack weapon is better than everything the fighter bomber has.

Rhino
2013-07-16, 10:08
In my mind the choice is obvious. Have JET AT missiles kill a vehicle if you hit it in a 5-10 meter radius. This is because it's very hard to get direct hits by firing at a laser. Be it a 2-seater or an A10 it's a slim chance your lase missile hits armor directly.

Have HELI AT missiles kill armored vehicles (APC, TANK, IFV) with direct hits and make quite small but noticeable damage from near misses. This is because it is ridiculously easy to hit a vehicle with helicopter's manually aimed missiles.

Well as I said, since the missiles fired from jets are bigger, they have a bigger explosion radius etc than the smaller hellfires etc as they did in the v1.0 Open Beta but that really only counted for a bigger kill radius vs infantry and soft targets as it still did little damages to armour without a direct hit, but still more than a hellfire hitting next to a tank in the same spot. If we where to up the damage of exploding next to targets of both chopper and jet AtG missiles then the jet missiles will still be more powerful with a larger radius.

But choppers still have "laser targeted" missiles and will be kinda odd with that not working vs tanks and jet missiles working fine if we where to do the above...

I agree with virus on the topic of the ASMs fired from jets, theyre much larger and should be splashing like they always did. The utility of the 2 seat fighter bombers was the hyper maneuverable brimstones and equivalent that acted like bombs. The bombs on the fighter bombers are very challenging to use, as they dont guide like the fighter's, so splashing infantry, large targets, or hitting armour while flying at ~1200 speed units diminishes their usefulness.

I'd take the fighter over the fighter-bomber in 1.0, it's ground attack weapon is better than everything the fighter bomber has.

The bombs on Fighter Bombers are LGBs, that do guide (at least they did the last time I tried them and pretty sure nothing has changed since), the only difference is that you have a gunner being able to look down, lock onto a lase and drop them onto a target, and also being able to manually guide them onto a target (although that last one still needs a bit of work iirc to make it more like the firing system choppers have), as well as getting many more AtG weapons than a Fighter. The other advantage is that the fighter can concentrate on the flying, while the gunner can concentrate on the bombing etc, instead of the pilot trying to do both at the same time, while also not having a downwards view.

notmyingamename
2013-07-16, 10:45
good discussion, thanks for the poll. i rarely get to gun the attack birds, spending most of the time piloting, so i can only give indirect feedback. i do know that i had two very effective and experienced gunners (years of pr) open up in squad mumble about seemingly direct hits that didn't result in kills or even mobility kills. the same guys that i fly with who often catch other helicopters with lg during the dogfight, for instance.

that system is workable, i think. people will innovate and i'm sure we could adjust into new attack patterns that work with the direct hit changes, but a little forgiveness makes sense with the stabilization or lack of.

viirusiiseli
2013-07-16, 11:25
Rhino;1918234']But choppers still have "laser targeted" missiles and will be kinda odd with that not working vs tanks and jet missiles working fine if we where to do the above...

Yeah I guess... Some splash could be added but certainly not much at least for tanks, maybe just give tanks some noticeable damage from <5m misses. For APCs some damage from <10 meter misses. I guess that way you could still kill a tank/APC with LT missiles by just using more of them. Maybe 3 near misses for a tank and 2 for APC, provided you hit within 5 meters of them.

I voted 25% but I'm happy with any of the top 3 options, preferably minimum splash. Good gunners shouldn't have too much trouble hitting static targets, and the Hellfires are currently devastating against grouped up infantry.

They wont anymore in 1.0 from what I gathered, hydras will be the most effective way to kill grouped up infantry and that is most of the time very risky :P

May i link u to virusilis Videos of CAS on BETA he still dominates not just cuz he is very good but because its so simple to do. Do not make this any easier !!!!

if you just watch virus dominate in the havok . SEE LINK BELOW

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f112-pr-bf2-tales-front/115546-videos-viirusiiselis-gameplay.html

what does it add to the other 48 players per team, . JUST RUINS APC TRANS. IMO APC TRANS NEEDS THIS.

Hard to understand exactly what you're trying to say since you have no idea how to use proper grammar. But from what I gathered you're afraid DEVs will make hellfires kill APCs from a miss, they most likely wont as it's absurdly unrealistic and would be slightly over powered even in the hands of a bad gunner.

Don't understand what you're on about with me killing stuff on 1.0 BETA as if it's too easy. 1.0 BETA was the most requiring version to gun a heli in, but in a good way. Gunning a heli on 1.0 was most definitely not "so simple to do" as you think. I killed things because I hit them dead on.

Hellfires didn't have big splash on armored vehicles nor on infantry in BETA. So infantry, light vehicles, armor and helicopters died not because gunning a heli is simple to do, they died because they got hit directly with a missile. If you can't handle that I don't know what to say.

ExeTick
2013-07-16, 11:49
Voted for 100% in a 5meter radius.

but instead of 5 meters I think it should be 100% on 1 meter for tanks and IFVs.

Mongolian_dude
2013-07-16, 12:10
Hitting a LZR box with a LZR guided ATGM needs to work every time, people. Hitting a LZR box isn't about good or bag gunners, but reducing the splash damage to 0 or very low levels can mean that this system is inefficient, unrealistic and effectively broken.

With that said, theres a argument that choices 1-2 or perhaps 1-3 shouldn't be in the poll. I think it's something further testing should clarify.


...mongol...

Felix
2013-07-25, 14:36
I think that you shouldn't be able to hit lased targets on every shot as this would promote skilled gunners over not skilled.
Therefore i voted 25% as it is balanced and somewhat realistic.

D.Busby
2013-08-17, 09:34
I meant to vote for 50% instead of 75% - so my bad.

But IMO 50% should be fair game.
Simply because of the fact that apache's etc are designed to kill armour, and to provide ATG support.

Now I'm definately not an expert. But when you have a 20lb missle coming at you, travelling at speeds of around 900MPH, you would think that splash damage would have an effect on armour.

With the way it currently is atm, you've got a better chance killing armour with a TOW/HAT. Then with an attack heli.
So with the extra increase in damage I reckon it'l be better all round.
But thats just my input :)

Mikemonster
2013-08-17, 10:37
I know that a few people have mentioned the warhead size of a Heli missile vs a Jet missile but here is some extra info to make a decision on (game-play aside):

AGM-114 Hellfire Warhead: 9kg
AGM-65 Maverick Warhead: 57 kg (A/B/C), 136 kg (E/F/G/H/J/K models)

(From Wiki).

CastleBravo
2013-08-19, 17:51
I like the idea of direct hits required to damage armor with manual guided missiles, but a reasonable (i.e. than in .9x) sized splash radius for missiles homing on a lase.

Also, is it possible to force the GTLD to stay on the target while the weapon is in flight? Maybe make the lase only last a split second but give the GTLD a fast "fire rate"? This would require the missile to be capable of acquiring a laser target mid flight though.

Any chance of ever seeing the fire and forget variants of some of these missiles (such as the AGM-114L MMW seeker and the AGM-65D IIR Maverick)? An AH-64D with a couple lock-on fire-and-forget AGM-114L that had the fire control point of view as the longbow radar on top of the rotor would be lots of fun for flying low and using terrain masking.

Rhino
2013-08-20, 07:38
Also, is it possible to force the GTLD to stay on the target while the weapon is in flight? Maybe make the lase only last a split second but give the GTLD a fast "fire rate"? This would require the missile to be capable of acquiring a laser target mid flight though.

Doing this in the way you have described would make the missile impact the ground somewhere in the middle of the spotter and the target (at best) because that would be the average area the targets would be in, that's if the missile could lock on and see it at all and also ignoring the problems of a pilot trying to lock onto the target too.

What we have tried in the past was trying to make a dummy explosion effect of a dummy projectile, fired by the SOFLAM spawn a laser target so when the dummy projectile impacted on the surface of a target, the laser would be spawned which would also mean the dummy projectile could travel at super fast speeds unlike our current one BUT we never managed to get this to work due to networkable problems :(
Although we haven't looked into this method for some time now but ye, even with it working this way, unless we made the laser last for quite some time (like it dose on the current system) which would mean the spotter wouldn't have to constantly paint the target, we would still have problems for the pilot getting a lock on the target, without letting him being able to fire the missile in a constantly armed state, which basically means he doesn't need to bother with getting a lock for it to track a target.

Any chance of ever seeing the fire and forget variants of some of these missiles (such as the AGM-114L MMW seeker and the AGM-65D IIR Maverick)? An AH-64D with a couple lock-on fire-and-forget AGM-114L that had the fire control point of view as the longbow radar on top of the rotor would be lots of fun for flying low and using terrain masking.

I'm sorry but how would this be any different from our current "laser targeted" fire and forget system ingame other than the camera view for an Apache?

CastleBravo
2013-08-20, 17:53
Rhino;1938852']I'm sorry but how would this be any different from our current "laser targeted" fire and forget system ingame other than the camera view for an Apache?

It wouldn't require a lase; the missile is capable of acquiring and tracking the target autonomously without a laser designator painting it. Not all Hellfires are capable of this; only the Lima model Hellfire has the MMW seeker in it. Obviously this would be very powerful and would remove some of the need for teamwork, so it should only be used sparingly on certain maps, but this is a real capability that any AH-64D with the Longbow radar, or fixed-wing jet with an AGM-65D can use.

For the semi-active laser homing missiles, what if all vehicles had a "dead" laser target on them by default that the GLTD somehow "heals", but will otherwise "bleed-out" very quickly if not getting lased. Obviously this wouldn't work for lasing a spot on the ground, so there would have to be a way to build both functions into the GLTD.

Rhino
2013-08-20, 17:58
It wouldn't require a lase; the missile is capable of acquiring and tracking the target autonomously without a laser designator painting it. Not all Hellfires are capable of this; only the Lima model Hellfire has the MMW seeker in it. Obviously this would be very powerful and would remove some of the need for teamwork, so it should only be used sparingly on certain maps, but this is a real capability that any AH-64D with the Longbow radar, or fixed-wing jet with an AGM-65D can use.

For the semi-active laser homing missiles, what if all vehicles had a "dead" laser target on them by default that the GLTD somehow "heals", but will otherwise "bleed-out" very quickly if not getting lased.

I see what you mean but this isn't possible in BF2 without sticking laser targets on all our vehicles, vBF2 style which would mean all our air to ground weapons would lock onto them without the need for them to be painted in much the same way as how our AA missiles lock onto jets.

And before you ask, no it isn't possible to make a new "target group". In BF2 we only have three target types to play with, "heat" which is used by air to air or ground to air weapons, "laser" which is used by air to ground weapons, and "unique" which is used by the hellfire etc in "Laser Guided mode" and can't be placed on a vehicle or projectile and the projectile fired from the weapon will only track its own unique target, which is why if you fly two Apaches next to each other and they both fire hellfires at different targets the missile targets don't confuse each other.

CastleBravo
2013-08-20, 18:02
Ah, thanks for taking the time to explain all of that.

Spuz36
2013-08-20, 19:41
Rhino;1939051']I see what you mean but this isn't possible in BF2

This hasn't stopped you folk in the past ;-)

I know the fire rate of the missiles has been changed in the past. Is it currently set to a delay or is it button mashable? Enjoyed the precision needed with a couple second delay a few releases ago. This required more thought on if CAS could handle it alone, or if a laze designation was needed to make a good kill.

Next to splash damage it was a pretty big factor in CAS-ability.

Raic
2013-08-22, 12:36
If CAS can affect the strike then make the damage of misses minimal. If the CAS cannot affect the hit, be it with position or angle of approach, the splash damage should be a little higher.

ExeTick
2013-09-03, 20:45
Lazes usually make me miss the target. lazes are a little bit above the vehicle and that make the hellfire land behind and do minimal damage. to kill it with LT missile you need to come in on a perfect altitude to kill it.

MaSSive
2013-09-03, 21:21
Voted 25% but this could depend on type of the missile, as stated previously, and type of the vehicle.

So near miss on light armored vehicles, such as BRDM2/Hummer etc, would at least kill the crew, or driver and render vehicle useless, flipped, or damaged to the point there's no repair.

Medium armored such as some types of APCs would make maybe 2 near missed tracking the vehiclle while any next would kill it.

MBTs - 3 near misses and tank is tracked, fourth is a critical damage, only bailout will save you.

Something like that.

Killer2354
2013-09-13, 13:18
Wait... if the missiles are different in code wise, why not make the LT missile do enough splash damage to kill if it gets a near miss because of the way lazes work in BF2 and keep the LG missiles as is? In theory, that should make it win-win since you need skill to kill with a LG while you're guaranteed at least to almost, if not kill a vehicle if you fired on a laze.

Psyrus
2013-09-13, 14:24
Wait... if the missiles are different in code wise, why not make the LT missile do enough splash damage to kill if it gets a near miss because of the way lazes work in BF2 and keep the LG missiles as is? In theory, that should make it win-win since you need skill to kill with a LG while you're guaranteed at least to almost, if not kill a vehicle if you fired on a laze.

This is actually a pretty brilliant idea IMO, it sorts out both problems at once! And encourages teamwork at the same time :-D

Rhino
2013-09-13, 14:37
Wait... if the missiles are different in code wise, why not make the LT missile do enough splash damage to kill if it gets a near miss because of the way lazes work in BF2 and keep the LG missiles as is? In theory, that should make it win-win since you need skill to kill with a LG while you're guaranteed at least to almost, if not kill a vehicle if you fired on a laze.

Its an idea that's been talked about before but not a route we want to take. Having the same missile magically do more damage because its being fired in a different tracking mode just doesn't make sense :p

From what I've seen and experienced of the Laser Targeted missiles so far is this isn't actually much of a problem, with most missiles striking the target directly, even from jets. I will admit I haven't seen too many and haven't gunned from a chopper in v1.0, but all of my AtG missiles from jets I've fired, and seen directed from both Choppers and Jets have hit, with only seeing one miss, which I'm pretty sure was an AtG missile from a jet, when I was in a tank :p
And tbh, that kinda hit rate represents what you have in r/l too as these missiles do miss quite a bit in r/l too ;)

On top of this there have been some developments from Mats391 in the community modding forums with making more effective lasers, which is where the problem really lies ;)
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding/124129-fast-lasers.html

Celestial1
2013-09-13, 20:16
Rhino;1949236']On top of this there have been some developments from Mats391 in the community modding forums with making more effective lasers, which is where the problem really lies ;)
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding/124129-fast-lasers.html

I think refining the laze system itself would be the best if it was feasible. Alongside Mats391's changes, if we could figure out a way to fix the lazes floating over the vehicles when they are lazed, we'd be much, much better off.

If all else fails, I'd say 50-75% damage if within like 2 meters would be pretty fair. I'm not sure how far the missiles usually miss, but the ones that I have survived from lazes being wonky were extremely, extremely close to me anyway.

chrisweb89
2013-09-13, 20:35
Rhino, the lases and LT mode is still very broken. I have seen it from pilot, and spotter view against tanks and even APCs, and they are not efficient at all. Only time to use LT as a chopper gunner would be on light light targets, or AA that is locking you. Anything else and its a waste of time because even with firing 2 you still may not get the kill on a perfectly good lase.

MaSSive
2013-09-14, 10:07
Well you dont lase so it sticks above vehicle..that's your bad. If vehicle is on the move laze in front of his path of moving and if its stick on its top, laze again or it will likely miss the target.

Usually lazing tracks very low from the side works for me, but when I gun for a gunship I dont rely on lazes at all. Usually its a waste of ammo, since no pubbies can laze effectively, so I rely on my own manual guidance.

With jets its a whole different thing. Rather than using a missile on the laze I use LGB, so if doesn't kill a tank or APC it will damage it severely.

One thing is for sure needed to change. Lazers should not be visible as target boxes by the one whos lazing. Something like Arma system of laze is when you just can see a red dot on the target if its closer than XX meters. This vanilla target box is to arcadish and can be seen by enemy. Also lazers dont take sides, so often smacktars laze their own blue guys for the lols, and reckless pilots does the damage.

Looking forward to see the change.

Mongolian_dude
2013-10-01, 12:40
Rhino;1949236']Its an idea that's been talked about before but not a route we want to take. Having the same missile magically do more damage because its being fired in a different tracking mode just doesn't make sense :p

From what I've seen and experienced of the Laser Targeted missiles so far is this isn't actually much of a problem, with most missiles striking the target directly, even from jets. I will admit I haven't seen too many and haven't gunned from a chopper in v1.0, but all of my AtG missiles from jets I've fired, and seen directed from both Choppers and Jets have hit, with only seeing one miss, which I'm pretty sure was an AtG missile from a jet, when I was in a tank :p
And tbh, that kinda hit rate represents what you have in r/l too as these missiles do miss quite a bit in r/l too ;)

On top of this there have been some developments from Mats391 in the community modding forums with making more effective lasers, which is where the problem really lies ;)
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding/124129-fast-lasers.html

Sorry Rhino, but it looks like giving the LT and LG Helfires different damage values is the only way to make the weapons act realistically if you insist on giving LG an small splash damage.


...mongol...

Celestial1
2013-10-01, 20:36
Mongolian_dude;1954666']Sorry Rhino, but it looks like giving the LT and LG Helfires different damage values is the only way to make the weapons act realistically if you insist on giving LG an small splash damage.

Wouldn't that still be broken, though?

1.0 reduced the splash of hellfires, which now means that soft targets not the direct target of the missile are no longer murdificated on splash, but making LT retain the old splash damage would mean that helo gunners can laze and fire LT to get the ability to wipe all of the squishy infantry within 20m again.

I guess it's mitigated the smaller the splash for LT is made but still, can result in some silly exploit tactics for gunners.

Jolly
2013-10-02, 03:15
When my tank doesn't have ATGM and nme's does.
I'd not dare to take the tank...

Mongolian_dude
2013-10-03, 11:33
Wouldn't that still be broken, though?

1.0 reduced the splash of hellfires, which now means that soft targets not the direct target of the missile are no longer murdificated on splash, but making LT retain the old splash damage would mean that helo gunners can laze and fire LT to get the ability to wipe all of the squishy infantry within 20m again.

I guess it's mitigated the smaller the splash for LT is made but still, can result in some silly exploit tactics for gunners.

Reverting the splash to the old value is likely not necessary, but a small amount of testing should give us a more fitting/realistic value than a vote on the forums.
It would also be entirely up to the gunner whether they want to waste time and ATGMs on INF like that when they (except the GER Tiger) have a perfectly capable cannon for this exact purpose.


...mongol...

chrisweb89
2013-10-03, 19:59
Gunner's can't lase for themselves,and even when they could no one did because the lase flies super slow and is super glitchy. Why would I attempt to lase a target for myself, when in that time I could get two manual missiles off, and with less glitchy shit going on, and when my pilot isn't hovering.

About the LTs though, they are currently broken and their only use is on inf, trucks, or very AA hot areas where you can't hold steady. They aren't reliable in any way (not the LGs are too reliable either), you shoot two missiles at a lased tank, they both track and follow the good lase and tank drives away with no damage done because of the removal of splash damage. Splash damage is what lets the laser targeted weapons work because the lase doesn't stick perfectly on the vehicle, and until lases act properly, the LTs missiles should make up for their short coming to still form an effective weapon system.

Mongolian_dude
2013-10-04, 11:01
Gunner's can't lase for themselves,and even when they could no one did because the lase flies super slow and is super glitchy. Why would I attempt to lase a target for myself, when in that time I could get two manual missiles off, and with less glitchy shit going on, and when my pilot isn't hovering.

About the LTs though, they are currently broken and their only use is on inf, trucks, or very AA hot areas where you can't hold steady. They aren't reliable in any way (not the LGs are too reliable either), you shoot two missiles at a lased tank, they both track and follow the good lase and tank drives away with no damage done because of the removal of splash damage. Splash damage is what lets the laser targeted weapons work because the lase doesn't stick perfectly on the vehicle, and until lases act properly, the LTs missiles should make up for their short coming to still form an effective weapon system.

But chris, thats not realistic!
What do you want, it being unrealistic and working (as RL) or it realistically not working (which is entirely unrealistic and not at all like real life) ?

Wait... wut?


Giving two different splash values is the only compromise to balance this issue out, as the ultimate goal of this mod is to provide realistic and enjoyable/logical gameplay. If we can make all the little intricacies as real as they are IRL, thats awesome, but in this instance we cant afford to do so as it entirely compromises gameplay logic, emersion and enjoyability.

Ergo? Separate dat sheet.



...mongol...

sirfstar
2013-11-08, 17:23
At least you should kill anything with 1 hit of LT missile.
Papier-mache AGM-114 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlatOzbHCko) from 0:30
LT is completely useless, missile hitting the lase and doing nothing, why it's still there then?

Qside
2013-11-08, 19:11
bad laze.

Inspektura43
2013-11-08, 19:45
Just get yourself a good gunner and never trust LT

sirfstar
2013-11-08, 21:48
that's the consequence of broken lase placement, not the gunner's fault. And while we had that big splash in pre-1.0 no one cared about LT, but now things are different

Rhino
2013-11-09, 07:38
For our next test build we are looking at testing Mats39's improved laser physics here (https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-pr-bf2-community-modding/124129-fast-lasers-4.html#post1961918) that should allow for lasers to stick on their targets better.

using RotationalPoint instead of Point as physics type seems to be a huge improvement.
For example i tested Point vs RotationalPoint both with the current 250m/s
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16448809/Pics/PhysicstypesComp.png
The RotationalPoint ones stick tighter to where you aim and are more consistant. With Point they sometimes didnt stick at all while RotationalPoint did just fine.

We've yet to test this out ourselves but so far it dose look promising and providing there are no unforeseen issues with this and it works the way we hope it dose, then this should solve the big underlying issue with "Laser Targeted".

Mongolian_dude
2013-12-01, 12:16
Still experiencing a poor success rate with the SU-22's ATGMs on both heavily and lightly armoured targets.

...mongol...

viirusiiseli
2013-12-11, 11:44
*looking back at 0.98 with a longing gaze*

dysin
2013-12-22, 18:05
maybe a little less effective overall with a "good" laze on heavier armor, but the real problem is with lighter skinned, smaller vehicles. if the laze sticks off the side, ground spotter often has no real way to identify the issue, so sending even two atgm will get it smoking at best. i'm referring specifically to maverick agm-65 type, such as issued on the su-22.

good example would be trying a diving run on an avenger. "good" laze can be several meters off target, uncontrollable from the pilot's perspective, leaving the crewman happily safe inside with a clear shot directly into the belly of the outbound, or the tail and a stack of flares in the worst case. same scenario from ww2 era strafing runs, and the disconnect run out with every AAA in range staring at the underside. that of course defeats the intention of agm's altogether...

with commander lazes apparently being removed in the future, i think that it's necessary to increase the damaging radius if the devs decide not to (or cannot) implement a good solution. at least do this for fast movers, as heli gunners have the far more effective manual option. larger classes of heavier armor do tend to cook off in 2 shots on a crooked laze, obviously due to their larger hitboxes, but they are still marginally safer from agm runs contrasted with .98

sirfstar
2013-12-28, 19:52
off-topic: have anyone had the issue with cobra when 1 actual click releases 4-8 missiles at the same time? really helps to kill anything with one run but quite annoying to reload every time.

Truism
2014-01-26, 00:44
I did some gunning yesterday, and we found the LT mode useless even with properly stuck lazes.

A moving vehicle was impervious to the missiles, with all of them near misses, and on a number of occasions, stationary vehicles with good lazes weren't destroyed. We were piloting the havoc, so I was dropping about 5 missiles per LT run in the hope of having an effect, but that wasn't creating the desired effect either.

I also discovered that far less of the PR community knows how to laze than used to. 9/10 of our "good lase, cas come" targets had some muppet sitting there holding left mouse on his GLTDs, with me and the pilot forced to watch the lases fly back and forth.

I'm just going to give LT a miss from now on. People can laze if they like, I'll just use it as a target indication.

Truism
2014-01-26, 00:46
Le double post.