20517 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Then again, maybe they'll implement C3 Networks (with the associated C3 Command Units and C3 Slave Units), with data-sharing capabilities beyond what is currently available through the BattleMechs' basic data-sharing systems.
Doing so would open up variants like the MAL-C Mauler (a 3051 variant, based on the MAL-1R, that trades one ton of AC ammo for a C3 Slave Unit) and the PNT-C Panther (a 3051 variant, based on the PNT-10K, that trades the Artemis IV FCS for a C3 Slave Unit) and the CP-11-C Cyclops (a 3050 variant, based on the CP-11-A, that trades its LRM-10 launcher for a C3 Command Unit and two additional tons of armor).

Potential capabilities of a hypothetical MWO C3 Network:

• Decreased target info acquisition time (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves base sensor range (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the lock-on-time and tracking strength of LRMs (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 25% or so, versus Artemis' 50%, Narc's 50%, and TAG's 50%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the grouping size of SRM volleys (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Artemis' 34%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves convergence speed of torso and arm weapons (similar to "Pinpoint" 'Mech Tree Elite Efficiency, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 8% or so, versus Pinpoint's 15%) for all members of the network.
  
• All C3 bonuses stack with similar bonuses from other equipment.
  
• All C3 bonuses are active so long as one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Command Unit (5.0 tons, 5 critical slots) OR one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Slave Unit (1.0 tons, 1 critical slot) that can reach a lancemate's functioning C3 Command Unit.
  
• C3 Networks would automatically configure themselves at the start of a match (with the Lance Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence if there are multiple C3 Command Units, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Lance Commander, and the Company Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence among the Lance Commanders, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Company Commander).
  
• C3 systems have no ECM-countering ability, and members of a C3 network may be cut off from the network (and lose their C3-granted bonuses) when covered by a hostile ECM field.

In this way, the proposed C3 Network provides a wide breadth of benefits to a Lance or Company, but the benefits to the individual units/players do not necessarily supplant the places of dedicated equipment - C3 becomes the proverbial "jack of all benefits, master of none", and its effectiveness both increases with coordination and promotes coordination and communication.
Additionally, its presence opens up the availability of certain 'Mech variants (see here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Command Unit, and here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Slave Unit), and it would also serve as something of an IS counterpart to the Clans' Targeting Computer (which is fixed equipment on the Masakari chassis and pod-mounted equipment on the Puma Prime).

Thoughts?

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 23 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

[awesomeness]

Thoughts?

PGI, read this.

[FireSlade]

Strum Wealh, on 23 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

{C3 Network Thoughts}

Thoughts?

I love it, gives it a role making the 5 tons worthwhile for a team but does not make it overpowered like ECM.

On a side note started using my Awesome (Thug) and I cannot tell if I am in love with the Thug or the Awesome; but damn if she is not a killing machine. I am probably going to be shot by a few for saying this but I wish that we were getting the Thug over the Mauler.

[ShadowbaneX]

Strum Wealh, on 23 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

[snip]C3 stuff[/snip]

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that it'd be useful for organized 12 vs 12 play, but utterly useless in general PUG play. I see very few solo drop types willing to give up a ton for something that cannot shoot bullets, let alone someone willing to spend 6 tons and 6 crits for the C3 Master Computer. If you're dropping with some friends in a group it might be worth while, or if you're in organized play. By-and-large though, probably going to be about as useful as the current Command Console.

Edit: also, I'm not sure that actually including C3 variants is at all necessary. I mean, most C3 mechs are just standard variants with some components missing for a C3 computer. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to modify existing variants so that they can take a C3 computer rather than making however many new variants that really aren't that much different from stuff that already exists.

Edited by ShadowbaneX, 24 February 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

ShadowbaneX, on 23 February 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

My thoughts are that it'd be useful for organized 12 vs 12 play, but utterly useless in general PUG play. I see very few solo drop types willing to give up a ton for something that cannot shoot bullets, let alone someone willing to spend 6 tons and 6 crits for the C3 Master Computer. If you're dropping with some friends in a group it might be worth while, or if you're in organized play. By-and-large though? Probably going to be about as useful as the current Command Console.

That C3 works best when used by a group with at least some organization (which does not necessarily need to be a "premade") is part of its inherent design, and has been since it first appeared in BattleTech - it's designed to promote, facilitate, and reward a higher level of team play, in a role analogous to the Warfare Links system in EVE Online.

Just as an EVE wing/fleet does not necessarily need to use Warfare Links to be effective (though, it would certainly help), a MWO Lance/Company would not necessarily need to use C3 to be effective (though, again, it would certainly help).

Also, the normal C3 Command/Master Unit is 5 tons & 5 crits; 6 tons & 6 crits is the later C3 Boosted Command/Master unit.

ShadowbaneX, on 23 February 2014 - 11:37 PM, said:

Edit: also, I'm not sure that actually including C3 variants is at all necessary? I mean, most C3 mechs are just standard variants with some components missing for a C3 computer. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to modify existing variants so that they can take a C3 computer rather than making however many new variants that really aren't that much different from stuff that already exists?

Having those additional C3-equipped variants become more viable options with the inclusion of their defining characteristic (that is, having C3 systems installed as stock equipment) helps certain 'Mechs that would otherwise have a dearth of available variants (notable examples include the Panther and Mauler).

Additionally, it is noted on page 188 of Strategic Operations that a Class D Refit Kit is required "to install an ECM Suite, C3 system, or Targeting Computer".
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing C3 have its own special hardpoint (similar to AMS & ECM), to further enhance the uniqueness of C3-capable variants (in addition to hardpoint allocation).

[ShadowbaneX]

Strum Wealh, on 24 February 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

That C3 works best when used by a group with at least some organization (which does not necessarily need to be a "premade") is part of its inherent design, and has been since it first appeared in BattleTech - it's designed to promote, facilitate, and reward a higher level of team play, in a role analogous to the Warfare Links system in EVE Online.

Just as an EVE wing/fleet does not necessarily need to use Warfare Links to be effective (though, it would certainly help), a MWO Lance/Company would not necessarily need to use C3 to be effective (though, again, it would certainly help).

Also, the normal C3 Command/Master Unit is 5 tons & 5 crits; 6 tons & 6 crits is the later C3 Boosted Command/Master unit.

Having those additional C3-equipped variants become more viable options with the inclusion of their defining characteristic (that is, having C3 systems installed as stock equipment) helps certain 'Mechs that would otherwise have a dearth of available variants (notable examples include the Panther and Mauler).

Additionally, it is noted on page 188 of Strategic Operations that a Class D Refit Kit is required "to install an ECM Suite, C3 system, or Targeting Computer".
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing C3 have its own special hardpoint (similar to AMS & ECM), to further enhance the uniqueness of C3-capable variants (in addition to hardpoint allocation).

Thing is, coordinated lances are already at an advantage over uncoordinated solo-queue pug drops. This sort of C3 system would give the former an additional advantage in terms of the upgrades you posted, which would lead to larger, more thorough PUG stomping or being forced to find a team/clan/unit to play with. Well, actually I guess that's more the current environment. If we get the CW lobby system up I could see some pre-game communication which could allow some better use of it.

As for only having some specific variants being equipped with it I'm not to fond of that idea. I could see specific locations being designated for it, but I think most if not all mechs should be able to carry it, like an AMS system. C3 Command computers should also need it, but those can be more restrictive. Well the weight already does that, but not all mechs should be able to mount it.

[Odanan]

ShadowbaneX, on 24 February 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Thing is, coordinated lances are already at an advantage over uncoordinated solo-queue pug drops. This sort of C3 system would give the former an additional advantage in terms of the upgrades you posted, which would lead to larger, more thorough PUG stomping or being forced to find a team/clan/unit to play with. Well, actually I guess that's more the current environment. If we get the CW lobby system up I could see some pre-game communication which could allow some better use of it.

You have a point here.
But isn't it good to incentive a higher level of playing? Isn't that what will keep this experienced players in the game?

ShadowbaneX, on 24 February 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

As for only having some specific variants being equipped with it I'm not to fond of that idea. I could see specific locations being designated for it, but I think most if not all mechs should be able to carry it, like an AMS system. C3 Command computers should also need it, but those can be more restrictive. Well the weight already does that, but not all mechs should be able to mount it.

So, we could reach a middle ground: C3 Master is restricted (like ECM) to a few variants and C3 Slave can be mounted in any chassis.

[BarHaid]

Also, looking at this from a completely PUG viewpoint; if I had access to a C3 command mech, I would certainly take it! I would also be throwing a C3 slave on any mech I could if it was available.

If there was a performance boost bonus for having more C3 masters on your team than was necessary might give some incentive for PUG use.

[Strum Wealh]

I would say that both C3 components would be restricted, with the C3 Slave Units possibly being less restrictive than the C3 Command Units (if they have independent hardpoints for each component, rather than using a "generic C3 hardpoint").

For example, the C3 Slave Unit is the primary difference between the MAL-C & the MAL-1R and between the PNT-C & the PNT-10K... and I'd argue that the latter in each case should be denied a C3 hardpoint in favor of some other quirk (extra AMS hardpoints, torso or arm twist/pitch ranges, etc) - in those cases, one should necessarily have to take "the C3 variant" to get C3 capability.

On the other hand, already-implemented 'Mech chassis that don't have a C3 variant at all (like the Awesome, JagerMech, Cicada, or Locust) or whose C3 variants are in the far future (like the BattleMaster or Centurion) could have C3 capability assigned to one (and only one) variant (to be determined by PGI, but preferably "the 3050 variant" in most cases), while already-implemented 'Mech chassis that have current C3-equipped variants (e.g. the Atlas, with its AS7-C variant) having those variants implemented.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 24 February 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

I would say that both C3 components would be restricted, with the C3 Slave Units possibly being less restrictive than the C3 Command Units (if they have independent hardpoints for each component, rather than using a "generic C3 hardpoint").

For example, the C3 Slave Unit is the primary difference between the MAL-C & the MAL-1R and between the PNT-C & the PNT-10K... and I'd argue that the latter in each case should be denied a C3 hardpoint in favor of some other quirk (extra AMS hardpoints, torso or arm twist/pitch ranges, etc) - in those cases, one should necessarily have to take "the C3 variant" to get C3 capability.

On the other hand, already-implemented 'Mech chassis that don't have a C3 variant at all (like the Awesome, JagerMech, Cicada, or Locust) or whose C3 variants are in the far future (like the BattleMaster or Centurion) could have C3 capability assigned to one (and only one) variant (to be determined by PGI, but preferably "the 3050 variant" in most cases), while already-implemented 'Mech chassis that have current C3-equipped variants (e.g. the Atlas, with its AS7-C variant) having those variants implemented.

Oh, the Atlas C is quite interesting!

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 24 February 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Oh, the Atlas C is quite interesting!

However, it is important that the C3-equipped AS7-C (to which you've linked) not be mixed up with the Clan-refit Atlas C...

[ShadowbaneX]

General replies instead of double/triple posting!

Odanan, on 24 February 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

You have a point here.
But isn't it good to incentive a higher level of playing? Isn't that what will keep this experienced players in the game?

So, we could reach a middle ground: C3 Master is restricted (like ECM) to a few variants and C3 Slave can be mounted in any chassis.

Having that higher incentive is a good thing, it might keep experienced players in game, but what about it from the other side? It could create a barrier to new people entering the game. I know a lot more people that just solo queue and take drops here and there than I know of people that are in clans/units that play mostly pre-made.

As for the C3, yeah, that's what I was thinking. A few units that are capable of mounting C3 Master systems, but most able to mount C3 Slaves.

BarHaid, on 24 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Also, looking at this from a completely PUG viewpoint; if I had access to a C3 command mech, I would certainly take it! I would also be throwing a C3 slave on any mech I could if it was available.

If there was a performance boost bonus for having more C3 masters on your team than was necessary might give some incentive for PUG use.

You might be one of the few. Again, that's a lot of tonnage to be devoting. Doesn't C3 require LoS to work? That means any time a mech dodges behind a building or around a corner you lose the benefits. I could see this leading to more hill & corner humping with more missile boat/command mechs in the back, ie another nail in the coffin of brawling mechs.

Strum Wealh, on 24 February 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

However, it is important that the C3-equipped AS7-C (to which you've linked) not be mixed up with the Clan-refit Atlas C...

Or the AS7-CM. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I think it could work for the C3 side of things, but there are implications to adding it. I'm worried about the impact on new & solo players, although, as stated a couple of posts back, with the lobby system you'd have pre-game coordination for getting C3 lances together.

I'm just not sure that the OP, ie adding extra variants so that the MAL-C is released as a 3rd variant is that great of an idea.

Edited by ShadowbaneX, 24 February 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[BarHaid]

ShadowbaneX, on 24 February 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

<snippity>
Doesn't C3 require LoS to work? That means any time a mech dodges behind a building or around a corner you lose the benefits. I could see this leading to more hill & corner humping with more missile boat/command mechs in the back, ie another nail in the coffin of brawling mechs.

Well, if PGI wants a C3 system that actually works in the context of MWO, it would behoove them to modify the capabilities somewhat. Perhaps give the units an individual range, but not require LOS to each other. And then bring back a bit of LOS rule by having ECM block you if it's sphere of influence is between you and your teammate.

[Strum Wealh]

Normal C3 networks in BattleTech did not require LOS between Command/Master Units and Slave Units in order to function and have no range limits for the Master/Slave link beyond "...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...", but "to make an attack using a C3 computer network, [one must] calculate the to-hit number using the range to the target from the networked unit nearest the target with line-of-sight" and "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".
(All quotes are from pg. 131 of Total Warfare.)

That being said, one (or one's lancemates) would still need to be able to actually target an opponent in order to benefit from C3's bonuses, and the current MWO LOS/targeting rules should work well with that...?

[Spheroid]

^The rules for TT were recently amended to require LOS.

[Odanan]

Anyway, in MWO, a C3 can't help you to aim, like in the tabletop... so, wouldn't be nice if the C3 in MWO improved the range of the weapon? (based on the distance of the nearest C3 member)

It's a simple solution that could worth the 8 tons the lance is committing on the C3 network.

[Odanan]

The thing is, PGI really ruined the balance of this game with their implementation of the ECM. It's just 1.5 tons and it has a great impact in the match, practically denying the use of some weapons by all enemies against friends inside the protective umbrella. Not to mention the only real counter to the ECM is another ECM (the other counters are very occasional).

No matter the implementation of the Target Computer (which can be very heavy) and the C3 (5 tons for the Master), they won't be par with the ECM.

And PGI will probably never introduce the C3 because it's hard to find a benefice that worths the 8 tons...

ECM should make the locking of the protected enemies a little slower, like 25%. And that is already a very good thing for the 1.5 tons.

[Antonio]

Agreed. The issue with ECM was not the mechanics introduced but the paltry cost of 1.5 tons. If PGI wanted equipment that did all that they should have released stealth armor and Angel ECM ahead of the timeline.

[Butane9000]

You could make the C3 system this way:

There is always a C3 "master" system in every match.

Any mech running a C3 Slave unit ties into this master system. These mechs link together and share data even through a ECM field. Any mechs linked into the C3 system get a 10% bonus to target info gathering and a 5% bonus to target decay.

You could counter the C3 Master system by a new consumable: The Jamming Drone.

Drone operates like the UAV. Any mechs running a C3 system caught inside the field lose the benefits of said system.

[Strum Wealh]

Spheroid, on 24 February 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

^The rules for TT were recently amended to require LOS.

"LOS: Units must have LOS to a target to make an attack using a C3 system, as does the C3 system itself. For example, in the C3 Diagram on p. 132, if something in hex 0409 was blocking LOS between the unit in Hex B and the target in Hex A, the units in Hexes C and D would not be able to use unit B’s range for the purposes of targeting the ’Mech in Hex A. " - TW Errata, v4.01

"An attacking unit may only gain the benefit of the C³ network against a target from the nearest network member unit with LOS to the target." - Xotl (BT Forum Mod) on "Another C3 & Terrain Question"

So, the errata indicates that there needs to be LOS between the "spotter" and the target & the pre-errata rules indicate that there must be LOS between the "shooter" and the target, but where is there an official indication that there necessarily needs to be LOS between the spotter and the shooter if both are part of the same C3 lance (or that either of them necessarily needs to have LOS to the C3 Command Unit, or that anything other than ECM is capable of severing the C3 Master/Slave link)?