XRM Antibase Missiles

Death3D · Post by **Death3D** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:22 pm

Not exactly, but essentially yes.

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:31 pm

doing that would require another damage class, which we don't really have free at this point in time.

I could see the use in an XRM EMP though, especially if they were relatively few per rack. You'd force them to reload after firing the EMPs, and while the EMPs would kill the shield, they'd have to get closer to use SRMs on the actual base (Or rip in a TT)

Ramaglor · Post by **Ramaglor** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:54 pm

BTW, we will NOT reduce the speed of XRM for the simple reason that it will increase it's effective range (unless we reduce lifespan). If you don't understand why, read up on your basic physics.

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:17 am

Ram, I think everyone who's suggested slowing them down implicitly meant to increase their lifespan to keep their range the same.

A quick artwork thought here: can you add flashing lights to missiles? Might make them a bit more targetable.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:01 pm

You guys worry too much.

Remember, if the removal of XRM turns out to be a bad thing, it's easy enough to fix. Just enjoy the change of pace for a while.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:43 pm

Personally I haven't even PLAYED in a game since CC_02 where a commander buys XRM. Seriously I had no idea it had even gotten a price tag.

And mind you, I played HEAPS of game where I was relied upon (as usual) to drop dem TP2s. Most peeps just went straight for the FBs.

redavian · Post by **redavian** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:12 pm

f/bs are loads more fun to fly anyway, so i wont miss xrm. but please dont remove lrm, its one of the few reasons that anyone would ever get a research station besides ap htts and maybe pew pew (mini dis aint worth the cash)

Pt bombers arent like f/bs, cos f/bs work through speed, whereas pts to be fair, dont work at all unless you have lrm ab, or the opposing team is full of <insert profanity>.

lrm does not need anything done to it.

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:58 pm

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Oct 18 2008, 09:53 AM) It won't help, if you reduce speed of XRM.

A bbr shoots 5 XRMs within 25-30 secs. Now you have 5-10 bombers, shooting XRMs. You and your team want to shot down 25-50 XRMs within 30 secs? GL.

After 30 secs HvyBombers traveled 2000 meters and get into ABM range, you have no time to kill them, before they blow your base.

Note:
XRP AB is much faster than XRM ABM (12.5 secs lifetime), it's pretty hard to shot these small "missiles" down.

SkyCap Tower!

Ramaglor · Post by **Ramaglor** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 5:59 pm

Ugh, I guess I will have to explain again.

READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT MISSILE RANGE

The actual distance a missile travels is = (launch speed + speed of ship)*lifespan+1/2 acceleration*time^2 while the "default" is the same only without the speed of ship.

or, d=v0t + 1/2at^2, where v0=launch speed + speed of ship

If we decrease launch speed or acceleration AND increase lifespan to keep the DEFAULT range the same, then the EFFECTIVE range will increase by speed of ship*(new lifespan - old lifespan).

For example, if the lifespan is increased by 5 seconds, then hvy bombers will get a 5 sec*80 m/s =400 m range boost on xrm.

WhiskeyGhost · Post by **WhiskeyGhost** » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:08 pm

I always assumed people were already taking that into account Ram, when they were making the suggestions. The ideas were mostly to make XRM more like a miniature version of XRM Cruise missiles, so they are easier to shoot down or defend against. Right now, XRM AB takes all of 12.5 seconds to travel 3.3k distance (4k at 60mps), so it's going pretty damned fast by the time it reaches the base to make up for the slow speed it starts off at.

I've also seen PT bombers work just fine, MRT gives you that little extra range you can't afford in most circumstances where hvy bombers would die while closing (a good 10 seconds?).