Jump to content

Lrms, C3 And Mwo


13 replies to this topic

#1 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 23 September 2014 - 12:25 PM

From my observations, I have determined that it is not LRMs that are OP, it is the fact that targetting in MWO functions as if every mech in the game is equipped with C3 targetting systems. If PGI removed the the ability to automatically share target information and made it so mechs had to buy and equip C3 computers to be able to share targetting information with other C3 equipped mechs, it would make LRM less overwhelming and it would make the role of a scout / spotter much more relevant and valuable.

Making a "transmitter" module that gives the ability to relay target info to other mechs which are equipped with a "receiver" module would be the best way to do it. If a mech is not equipped with either module, it would only be able to get target info for the target it is locked onto, but would not be able to relay info to or receive info from team mates.

Edited by IronClaws, 23 September 2014 - 04:04 PM.


#2 Ristle

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 57 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:10 PM

As a LRM lover, I like this idea. It seems like it would be a much easier thing to implement than overhauling ECM, and provide a bit of safety to teams without ECM, in regard to the usual angry bee swarms they see at times.

It would also shake up mech builds, and change things a little bit, which I think would be interesting in itself due to the possible workarounds some pilots would come up with. This would also mean that teams that rely on heavy LRM use would have to plan their builds around supporting the targeting system being installed, in order for things to be effective.

#3 TanE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 757 posts
  • LocationIn investigation of the Ghostbear Dominion

Posted 24 September 2014 - 02:25 AM

Sounds nice, but Clans do not have an C3 Network. How do they share Information? As today, because they have a better technology? It would be a nerf for IS (and their full broadside LRM boats and loosing one to for the C3 Slave) with buff for the role of a scout. But what, if there is no C3 Master in the field? Does the Matchmaker have to find a player with a C3 Master equiped Mech? The Network doesn't work without it (lore).

For IS an interessting idea (role warfare) but with an open end how to integrate it for the Clans and C3 Master.

#4 Martin Oberhofer

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 05:11 AM

I like it!
just make a similar sys for clans (lore or not) :)
I would even consider making it a component (tonnage and slot)
3tons 2 slots for the master
2tons 1 slot for the reciever

or maybe do a switchable C3
so you can change its mode like ECM - ensuring there will be always al Master if you want
and you could replace destroyed masters

#5 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:09 AM

View PostTanE, on 24 September 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

Sounds nice, but Clans do not have an C3 Network. How do they share Information? As today, because they have a better technology? It would be a nerf for IS (and their full broadside LRM boats and loosing one to for the C3 Slave) with buff for the role of a scout. But what, if there is no C3 Master in the field? Does the Matchmaker have to find a player with a C3 Master equiped Mech? The Network doesn't work without it (lore).

For IS an interessting idea (role warfare) but with an open end how to integrate it for the Clans and C3 Master.


I wholly agree that clan mechs should have to use a similar system if for no other reason than game balance.

View PostS B, on 23 September 2014 - 11:10 PM, said:

As a LRM lover, I like this idea. It seems like it would be a much easier thing to implement than overhauling ECM, and provide a bit of safety to teams without ECM, in regard to the usual angry bee swarms they see at times.

It would also shake up mech builds, and change things a little bit, which I think would be interesting in itself due to the possible workarounds some pilots would come up with. This would also mean that teams that rely on heavy LRM use would have to plan their builds around supporting the targeting system being installed, in order for things to be effective.


I read allot of comments regarding "role warfare", a system like what I described will encourage role warfare in the purest form.

#6 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:28 AM

For clans mechs, this could be implemented by simply requiring a level 2 or higher Targetting computer to transmit and a level 1 or higher to receive targetting info.

This idea could also be expanded to allow dedicated spotting mechs to be able to extend the range of direct-fire "sniper" weapons beyond their max ranges (a sniper mech would have to have a zoom module and targetting computer, or receiver module to gain this benefit).

Edited by IronClaws, 24 September 2014 - 09:33 AM.


#7 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:33 AM

View PostIronClaws, on 23 September 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

From my observations, I have determined that it is not LRMs that are OP, it is the fact that targetting in MWO functions as if every mech in the game is equipped with C3 targetting systems. If PGI removed the the ability to automatically share target information and made it so mechs had to buy and equip C3 computers to be able to share targetting information with other C3 equipped mechs, it would make LRM less overwhelming and it would make the role of a scout / spotter much more relevant and valuable.

Making a "transmitter" module that gives the ability to relay target info to other mechs which are equipped with a "receiver" module would be the best way to do it. If a mech is not equipped with either module, it would only be able to get target info for the target it is locked onto, but would not be able to relay info to or receive info from team mates.

Let me guess, you are basing your argument on the the Sarna description of C3?

While it is not wrong, it is not totally correct either. Mechs where always able to provide targeting data. There was indirect fire before that system became available.

Here are some excerpts from the rulebook on what C3 actuall does, about indirect LRM fire and spotting.

Page 111 of the Total Warfare rulebook

Quote

LRM Indirect Fire
Units armed with LRM-type weapons may fire those missiles indirectly. Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter). An attacker with a valid LOS to a target cannot make an LRM indirect fire attack, even if that attack would have a better to-hit modifier.

As you can see, there is no mention of special equipment needed to be a spotter.

Page 131 of the Total Warfare rulebook

Quote

C3 COMPUTER (MASTER/SLAVE)
The C3 computer system can link up to twelve ’Mechs or vehicles together—utilizing a series of C3 Master and C3 Slaves—in a communications network that will share targeting information. To make an attack using a C3 computer network, calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line of sight. Use the firing unit’s modifiers for movement, terrain effects, minimum range and so on. A weapon attack using a C3 network must conform to standard LOS restrictions and cannot fire beyond its maximum range, though a well-placed lancemate may allow the firing unit to use his weapon’s short-range to-hit number at long range.
The C3 network itself has no maximum range, but only units actually on the playing area can benefit from the network, and the C3 Master (or C3 Masters if using a company-sized network) must be on the playing area.
TAG: The C3 Master (but not the C3 Slaves) exactly duplicates the function of target acquisition gear (see TAG; p. 142).
LRM Indirect Fire: C3-equipped units spotting targets for or launching an LRM indirect fire attack use the LRM Indirect
Fire rules (see p. 111), and gain no benefit from a C3 network.

The LRM entry shows that LRM do not gain a benefit for indirect fire from a C3 unit.

It's also referenced a few times in the novels. So mechs spotting without such equipment is not only correct from a rule point of view, it is also in the lore. I see no real reason, to add such a tax to MWO. LRMs are not as overpowered as they appear to be, once you learn how to effectivly deal with them.

#8 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:35 AM

@Egomane I was attempting to take the concept of the "C3" and tailor it in a way that would work in MWO. I was not specifically claiming that LRMs are OP, I would just like to see a greater level of skill and teamwork be necessary to use them to the fullest extent.

Edited by IronClaws, 24 September 2014 - 09:44 AM.


#9 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 09:51 AM

If they are not OP, why nerf them in such a way?

I am totally for more teamwork, but this would effectivly kill LRMs. Almost no one is using them in competetive play and you can not expect players in a PUG environment to adjust their modules for another player.

#10 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 10:12 AM

View PostEgomane, on 24 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

If they are not OP, why nerf them in such a way?

I am totally for more teamwork, but this would effectivly kill LRMs. Almost no one is using them in competetive play and you can not expect players in a PUG environment to adjust their modules for another player.


Then there is no point in having "role warfare" in a pug environment. Maybe there should be separate rule sets for the pug and group environments?

I have played in both environments since I started.

Edited by IronClaws, 24 September 2014 - 10:17 AM.


#11 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 10:25 AM

View PostIronClaws, on 24 September 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Then there is no point in having "role warfare" in a pug environment. Maybe there should be separate rule sets for the pug and group environments?

I have played in both environments since I started.

Or we shouldn't make role warfare equipment dependent. Let it be part of the game mechanisms instead.

I don't see such a module as a part of role warfare. Or any type of equipment to be honest. We would reduce the roles of the mechs to LRM thrower and LRM spotter with it. You either go all in, or you let it be. Let a scout be a scout, by giving him things to scout for, instead of limiting the things he can be effective in (the module would do that).

The roles I want to see represented in MWO are:
- A real commander. The current functionality for one is to limited.
- Scouts with things to scout for and to effectivly communicate it with ingame tools.
- Support being more then throwing artillery modules and firing LRMs indirectly.

So far everyone is effectivly everything. But to change that we do not need equipment that will limit us, but ingame tools that allow us to be what we want to be more effectivly.

Edited by Egomane, 24 September 2014 - 10:26 AM.


#12 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 10:36 AM

View PostEgomane, on 24 September 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Or we shouldn't make role warfare equipment dependent. Let it be part of the game mechanisms instead.

I don't see such a module as a part of role warfare. Or any type of equipment to be honest. We would reduce the roles of the mechs to LRM thrower and LRM spotter with it. You either go all in, or you let it be. Let a scout be a scout, by giving him things to scout for, instead of limiting the things he can be effective in (the module would do that).

The roles I want to see represented in MWO are:
- A real commander. The current functionality for one is to limited.
- Scouts with things to scout for and to effectivly communicate it with ingame tools.
- Support being more then throwing artillery modules and firing LRMs indirectly.

So far everyone is effectivly everything. But to change that we do not need equipment that will limit us, but ingame tools that allow us to be what we want to be more effectivly.


My idea does not necessarily have to be equipment-bound, that was just my opinion on the best way to implement it.

#13 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 24 September 2014 - 10:48 AM

View PostIronClaws, on 24 September 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

My idea does not necessarily have to be equipment-bound, that was just my opinion on the best way to implement it.

That's why I commented in this thread. I believe that the opinion that you posted would be a bad idea to implement. It's not the notion to get a better role seperation, but the way you suggested about getting to it. I'll be happy to read other ideas, if you come up with them. I'd also be happy if I where proven wrong, that your method could actually work, with the right arguments.

#14 Dagorlad13

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 516 posts
  • LocationClan Ghost Bear Occupation Zone.

Posted 24 September 2014 - 11:06 AM

View PostEgomane, on 24 September 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

That's why I commented in this thread. I believe that the opinion that you posted would be a bad idea to implement. It's not the notion to get a better role seperation, but the way you suggested about getting to it. I'll be happy to read other ideas, if you come up with them. I'd also be happy if I where proven wrong, that your method could actually work, with the right arguments.


While I appreciate your input and criticism, I still think that making the ability to relay target information equipment/module based is not a bad idea because it:

a. Makes any related equipment / modules much more valuable

b. Causes players to more carefully choose what equipment / modules they take based on the role they intend to fulfill and the utility said items provide to their team.

Edited by IronClaws, 24 September 2014 - 11:20 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users