24 replies to this topic

[GrindcoreJoe]

So, how to start?

I start with me. I played MechWarrior 2, 3, 4, Mechcommander 1, 2 and I read a lot of the books.

In that books the Mechs have a lot sensors. Magnetic annomaly detectors (MAD) read magnetic fields created by fusion reactors. Radar, everyone knows how this works, and the heat detection. And yes, there is visual identification. But a Mech can send ALL of this intel to other Mechs of his Unit!

So, where we are with MWO?

You can lock on >1< target and only via visual. And only if its not ECM-protected?!

How can ECM harm visual detection? Visual detection is made by cameras! And if it would harm my Mech, it would be within close range and not outside! And it would possibly shut my whole Mech down if it could harm it!

And why only >1< Mech I spotted? These things have Radar, Cameras and so on, and if (and only IF) I am on a direct line to them I should get them all detected and transmitted to my Team-Members, while I am not under influence of Enemy ECM.

And MAD is completly out.. In the Books BattleMechs can at least get the direction of the magnetic anomaly, depending on the size of the reactor, and they even can triangle the position, if they are not under Enemy ECM. But magnetic anomaly detectors can be disturbed by nature elements like a storm or a lot of metal in the hills.

Last point: Heat. Hot air goes upwards. So you can detect a Mech behind a building, if its Heat Sinks are open or the Mech itself is hot from weapons fire or something.

This all together could make a great strategic game.

So my suggestion:

-Visual detection on all targets in the FOV and transmitted to all Teammembers while not under ECM.
-MAD to get directon of fusion reactors (in Mechs or envirement) or placed sources on the map.
-Mechs creating heat steams upwards and an option to open/close heat sinks.
-ECM does no more preventing lock-ons, but disturbes target detection of missiles while inside its range and let them fly to the last target psoition.

Thanks for reading! With love, Grindcore Joe.

P.S.: Sorry, I am German.

[Kalimaster]

I like the idea of the MAD concept to sensors. I would say give it a limited range (suggestion) and as a sub-component of the standard sensor unit so we could customize sensors to some degree.

[GrindcoreJoe]

Yes! The customization is a possible item, like a "Magnetic Anomaly Decoy would be one. And the limited range is like i thought about this: like a line beyond the compass which gives swings on every anomaly detected. Like twice the reactors strench in meters, decreasing by meters.

[InspectorG]

Keep in mind:

Battletech is a boardgame

MWO is a team based 1st person shooter.

They may not be completely compatible.

More accurate implementation of BT rules may make an unplayable video game(and vice versa)

[happy mech]

i agree, just keep in mind you need to keep it accessible to new players (easy to understand)
my suggestions how to implement it:
definitive mech target (like now) - red rectangle
EM signature (including natural sources) - yellow rectangle
heat signature (all sources of +- said temperature) - light blue rectangle
radar combined with visual recognition (movement, even if under ecm, lock lost if target stops moving or line of sight is obstructed, possibly filter our lrms) - green rectangle
friendly narc stuck somewhere that is not confirmed a mech (like in terrain) - purple rectangle

you can lock onto any target (with a separate key to cycle other than red targets)
you only gain information of a mech identified visually (red)

temperature:
in frozen city, it would be cool if we could identify the hot air even without sensors (if not too gpu intensive), or at least through thermal vision
in tourmaline, the hot air does not rise so much as everything is +- hot air
in hpg manifold, there is no hot air
hellslinger does have smaller heat exhaustion
open/close heatsinks would be cool too

[GrindcoreJoe]

What I think of about the MAD is more like a line beyond the compass which gives impulses on magnetic anomalys in a direction, so no lock-on. More like the line swings for a Mech with 170 reactor in close like it swings on a 400 in distance. Or on a natural source. So scouts can hide in terrain-based anomalys, assaults can not. I dont think that would hurt the easy access. I think it would just give the game more depht and differ it more from all the shooters around.

[GrindcoreJoe]

InspectorG, on 01 November 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Keep in mind:

Battletech is a boardgame

MWO is a team based 1st person shooter.

They may not be completely compatible.

More accurate implementation of BT rules may make an unplayable video game(and vice versa)

For my opinion, MWO is a Mech simulation game. And of course it is not possible to bring a round-based board game to a real time shooter.

But my suggestet changes do not try to be closer to the board game, they just try to bring it closer to the BattleTech Universe and a little bit away from "No ECM = Failure".

B.t.w. Even in the board game you can at least see the Enemy.

[Telmasa]

I agree wholeheartedly that ECM should not behave as though it's automatically got an IFF-jammer-thingy installed.

[GrindcoreJoe]

Telmasa, on 03 November 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

I agree wholeheartedly that ECM should not behave as though it's automatically got an IFF-jammer-thingy installed.

Yeah I am counting it: On the last 12 Games without ECM *in our Team* we lost 12! Thats not a small problem!

*edit*

Edited by GrindcoreJoe, 06 November 2014 - 12:33 PM.

[Telmasa]

GrindcoreJoe, on 06 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Yeah I am counting it: On the last 12 Games without ECM *in our Team* we lost 12! Thats not a small problem!

*edit*

Y'all should be bringing more BAP.

Still, the IFF part is a little much even with the BAP counters going on.

[GrindcoreJoe]

Telmasa, on 06 November 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

Y'all should be bringing more BAP.

Still, the IFF part is a little much even with the BAP counters going on.

Yeah, I could still live with LRMs loosing all flight direction, but the IFF-Loss is so much over the top. I mean you cant even attack vital points, and no one can bring up a rational reason why this could not be done!

BTW I dont want to do Adds for myself but I did some work on bringing this Poll up, so please vote! We can make it better for all the Players here.

[GrindcoreJoe]

InspectorG, on 01 November 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Keep in mind:

Battletech is a boardgame

MWO is a team based 1st person shooter.

They may not be completely compatible.

More accurate implementation of BT rules may make an unplayable video game(and vice versa)

The changes i suggested do not change the maybe 1st Person Shooter in its basics. It almost only changes the System how ECM works. It is too powerfull as it is. When the Game starts you can really count your chances to win this fight by the number of ECMs you got with your team: none to 1 - you will almost shure loose, 2 - you can win, 3 or more - You only shoot for XPs and CBills. You have already won.

Even Call of Duty is a fairer 1st Person Shooter. And we are talking about the one and only BT-Game!

[InspectorG]

GrindcoreJoe, on 08 November 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

The changes i suggested do not change the maybe 1st Person Shooter in its basics. It almost only changes the System how ECM works. It is too powerfull as it is. When the Game starts you can really count your chances to win this fight by the number of ECMs you got with your team: none to 1 - you will almost shure loose, 2 - you can win, 3 or more - You only shoot for XPs and CBills. You have already won.

Even Call of Duty is a fairer 1st Person Shooter. And we are talking about the one and only BT-Game!

I dont think ECM is too powerful.
Poorly implemented, yes, i agree.

ECM is really only a factor in low to mid-level PUG play where communication is lacking.

Higher level PUG play and team play, due to players using better communication and VOIP mitigate ECM quite a lot.

Look at competitive players, they think the best value of ECM is not the lock-denial or the stealth aspects...it is how it hides your damage from being concentrated upon.

Skill level kinda changes the game in my experience.

Lower level play there will be more camping, uncoordinated shooting, little to no tactics, little if any communication, and a generally 'reactive' type of play.

Higher level and comp play, as far as ive seen, focuses more on communication and concentrated fire upon priority targets(or targets of opportunity). VOIP makes ECM pointless because visual sighting is quickly acted upon and in general, the whole team moves in a coordinated effort to find the enemy and gain the initiative...pretty much the opposite of lower level play.

THE BIGGEST FACTOR of a PUG win/loss as far as i can tell, is the team to get a 3 or 4 player lead over the other team.
At that point the losing team has 75% to fight against 100%. That is more occurrence of the losing side being out numbered on any given point of conflict.
Once this happens it USUALLY snowballs and accelerates for the winning team. ECM rarely if ever stops this.

If ECM stopped this phenomenon from happening only half of the time, high level players would prioritize ECM in their builds. They do not.

I recently read the developers view EM's role in play as the way for the slower, heavier mechs to get protection from spawning point to the battle-lines. After that, ECM loses viability due to close proximity of the enemy.

And with the new Buff to BAP/AP, ECM loses viability even sooner.

BAP had, in BT, some of the feature you seek. Non-Line=of-sight detection, 360 degree detection, so on.

ECM was supposed to counter Narc, TAG, etc. But PGI changed the function. I do think the relationship between ECM/Stealth/LRM indirect fire need changed. I agree there.

But the direction PGI stated they are taking does make sense, if they dont intend on changing how indirect fire works. Time will show how well their idea will work.

[GrindcoreJoe]

It still sounds like your only difference between low level and high level is a coordinated team with VOIP. Of course when I form up a 12 guys team we have 2 AS7-D-DC and 2 ECM Ravens. The D-DCs to cover my 10 Attackers and the 2 Ravens to TAG or NARC theirs.

But one above wrote about making the game easy accessable for new players. I dissagree, because its the only Battletech game at the time.

But when you say ECM is not so important on Team Games, and I say its to hard on PUGs and hurts the game, so from Gentleman to Gentleman the best thing would be reduce its Power, because the Team Game doesnt get hurt and the PUG gets more equal.

Quepos?

[Kreisel]

Personally I'd like to see something like this as the Active/Passive Sensor play. I think it would create for a very interesting dynamic to have detection that is not line of sight dependent while in Active sensor mode, something like how seismic sensors works, but you have to be in Active sensor mode. In Active mode you can detect hostile mechs in active sensor mode without line of sight much in the way seismic sensors work now.

Switching to passive sensors would make everything work the way it does now, line of sight detection only. In passive mode you can only be detected with LOS, Tag, Narc, UAV and seismic. I.e the way the game plays now. But while in passive mode you don't receive any active sensor data. You start the match in passive mode, it should be conscious choice to go sensors active, possibly revealing yourself.

I think it would be cool if You share active sensor data with all friendly mechs who are running sensors active. You could buff Command Console by letting you receive the active sensor data of allies while you are in passive mode or allow you to share your active data with passive allies. Or perhaps sensor data isn't normally shared among allies but a Command Console, BAP or a Module lets you share your Active sensor data.

ECM could show up as a bubble where active sensors can't detect anything but you can see where that bubble is on active sensors. Allowing you to detect the bubble itself but not whats inside on active sensors.

[Karl Streiger]

You shouldn't forget the interesting part about active sensors.
Active sensors - is like - here guys, here I am - so you can shoot me.

The moment you switch active sensors - almost every LRM should get an instant lock on you, every sensor should go crazy.

Maybe you should need active sensors to achieve a LRM lock on anyhow, of course you need C3i equipment to share target data. Currently it is only vital for LRMs - but remember before HSR - locking on a target was important for your LOS weapons too. That means to mount C3I equipment - only to bolster LRMs and the missing of C3I to nerf LRMs isn't good game desing (imho)

But what about the benefit? Game would need more smarter use of sensors.

• you have for example a Cyclops somewhere in the rear quarter
  
• this Cyclops has C3 or Command Console
  
• he activates active sensors and get blibs
  
• cause of his C3I equipment he can share those informations with other mechs
  
• no C3I no sharing - not to mention locking.
  
• if there is an enemy LRM boat within 1000m range - he should be prepared that its start raining soon
  
• so he may switch to active sensors beyond 1000m range to the front line
  
• its possible with C3I equipment to share telemetry data - even using passive sensors but it need more time to do this.

So the ideal team would consist of a GWACS - Sensor Mechs, some Scouts - for going after blibs - and get better telemetry data and Artillery Mechs to use the active and passive sensor inputs for maximum benefit.

Without C3I equipment - you should only get - visual "help" for example painting a target with desgination Alpha - Lima- so you know that there is a target - but you don't know about his armor, systems or type (maybe even a Information lag - so you know that there was a target 5sec before)

[F R A N C I S]

I know this is a very differnt engine... but back in Battlefield/2/3 the ability to bring up a command console quickly was a great way for teams to communicate... it's probably impossible, but it would be great to have this kind of thing in MWO.

Like the OP says, the ability to visually spot would be great. Even if it's just a different colour ping on the minimap.. like a orange blip that lasts a couple of seconds to show last sighted position.

[GrindcoreJoe]

I would like to see Active/Passive Sensors to, but my above suggestions were on Public Games, so I thought about beeing easy accessable with just adding some of the Battletech-known Sensors to the actual Gameplay.

I think the Open/Close Function for the HeatSinks is a good starting Point to make this game more BattleTech. Active/Passive Sensors would be the Cream on the Top!

Please Vote if you have a Opinion to this Topic!

Your Friend and Foe,

Grindcore Joe!

(2nd Winner of House Steiners "Mechwarriors CAN rhyme Trid-Contest)

[RonanFrost]

Kreisel, on 12 November 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Personally I'd like to see something like this as the Active/Passive Sensor play. I think it would create for a very interesting dynamic to have detection that is not line of sight dependent while in Active sensor mode, something like how seismic sensors works, but you have to be in Active sensor mode. In Active mode you can detect hostile mechs in active sensor mode without line of sight much in the way seismic sensors work now.
...... [cut short because I'm verbose]

I kind of see what you're going for here, but for the most part, you're talking about what BAP in conjunction with C3 should be ... obviously, C3 is assumed equipped on all mechs for MWO's purposes. I think the big differentiating factor here, is they're allowing "Gifted C3" to level the playing fields in terms of communication in pugs (as they should, and I'm personally fine with this).

My thoughts on BAP/ECM:

-=Beagle/Clan Active Probe (BAP/CAP)=-
BAP is by definition, an ACTIVE sensor. It should be something that passive (standard equipment) mechs can pick up (think active pings of sonar). You wanna run BAP for better sensors and lock time? Great! Expect to get spotted on people's radar (like a seismic ping?) if they're within your bubble, and you have it on. Also, if those conditions are met it should show up communicated no different from ECM ([BAP] next to the equipped mech's carrot).


-BAP should not blanket-counter ECM, but allow the the BAP-equipped mech to target the ECM mech as normal, and not send out the signal to other mechs.
-Sure, allow BAP to be able to pick up things like heat and magnetic.
-Magnetic should only be in Direction shown at the edge of the minimap and intensity denoted by intensity of color.
-BAP-equipped mechs with BAP turned on should display [BAP] next to their carrot if there is a mech within 360m of them to pick it up. (shouldn't be able to call them out for focus fire with my nearest teammate at 600m from them, for example)
-Next step - Make BAP toggleable, just like ECM.
-=Guardian Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)=-
Right now, it's Almost useless, with the expansion of range on BAP. Sure, it is kind of broken for it to supersede visual sensors. In current implementation, however, to give "cameras can visually spot ECMd mechs" a blanket override like that would be to make the final blow to making ECM completely worthless. Tie it in with BAP? Possibly, but not all the way across the map. I would buy double range of BAP (bringing it to 720, or 30 short of normal 750, iirc)

-ECM should disrupt outgoing missile locks. (e.g. - if a 3L gets within 180m of a missile boat)
-ECM should counter active heat sensing from BAP only when it's on, but also cause heat dissipation to suffer when active. (closing vents over exhaust ports, as in canon)
-IMHO ECM-eqipped mechs within the 180-360 range of an active BAP-equipped mech, should really only be partially targetable (slow lock, slow data, flickering IFF), giving full information/operation of sensors inside 180.
-ECM-equipped mechs should not display '[ECM]' next to carrot unless there is a mech within range to sense the presence of ECM in use. (I regularly call out ECM-equipped mechs for improved narc and focus fire)
-ECM is not god mode, and should obviously in no way counter seismic sensors.

Now, all of this said, it is extremely arduous to code all of this crap, so we shouldn't hold our breath. We've been holding it long enough for Community Warfare to come in (thank you so much IGP).
As always, PGI, I love what you're doing, and am ecstatic to see you back at the helm and pulling for the community. Keep it up.

[GrindcoreJoe]

RonanFrost, on 20 November 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

I really could agree with that!