Jump to content

Introduce C3 Systems


24 replies to this topic

#1 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 20 May 2015 - 04:53 AM

Right now, game play in MW:O functions as if every battlemech is equipped with a full compliment of C3 computers (with no weight or critical slots).

If MW:O is truly wanting to be a "thinking man's shooter", and would like to introduce actual role warfare, a modified C3 system would add a level of complexity to the game and force harder choices on the players. Since MW:O now has VOIP, C3 could be something vital to teamwork.

There are many ways this could be implemented, and it would need to be tweaked a bit from the TT rules to function correctly, but it could be done.

A unit would need at least one operational 'mech equipped with a C3 master in order to share target data (and enable VOIP for the team). Only units equipped with a C3 slave (providing there is a teammate with a C3 master) could share targeting info.

Some tweaks could be:
- Allow the C3 master to also function as a C3 slave in game, since PUG drops and different groups have no way to co-ordinate beforehand.

- Allow a C3 Master unit to be integrated into the (mostly worthless) command console.

- Only allow C3 systems on I.S. battlemechs, as Clans did not find focus firing a single target honorable. (this could balance I.S. and clans in a lore-friendly way)

- Allow C3 masters and/or slaves to be equippable on all I.S. chassis.

Any other thoughts or suggestions?



#2 Harry Mangina

    Member

  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 21 May 2015 - 11:57 AM

As nice as that sounds, it would never happen.

PGI is not capable of adding that in without screwin6 it up in some way.
The "Leet skillz" crowd would complain about their meta builds.

People want EZ arcade mode.

#3 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 24 May 2015 - 02:52 PM

Why couldn't it happen? It is completely canon and within the rules.

How would this change meta builds besides giving up a heat sink or two?

#4 Thunder Child

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 1,460 posts
  • LocationOn the other side of the rock now.

Posted 25 May 2015 - 02:57 AM

We DON'T have C3. C3 is an Inner Sphere advanced targeting system that allows mechs at long range to fire as though they were at short range, as long as a C3 equipped ally is at short range.
It's a Cone of Fire Modifier. We have no Cone of Fire, so we have no C3, simply put.
C3 would have no effect on this game with the current Precision Shooting.

The In-Game VOIP? A standard feature in all mechs. It's called a RADIO. Although they also use Laser Micro-burst transmitters.

The target info sharing? A standard feature of Basic Mech Sensors.

Also, C3 was NOT needed for LRM Indirect Fire. Just a Spotter (though the Spotter was NOT allowed to fire).

#5 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 25 May 2015 - 03:32 AM

View PostThunder Child, on 25 May 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

We DON'T have C3. C3 is an Inner Sphere advanced targeting system that allows mechs at long range to fire as though they were at short range, as long as a C3 equipped ally is at short range.
It's a Cone of Fire Modifier. We have no Cone of Fire, so we have no C3, simply put.
C3 would have no effect on this game with the current Precision Shooting.

The In-Game VOIP? A standard feature in all mechs. It's called a RADIO. Although they also use Laser Micro-burst transmitters.

The target info sharing? A standard feature of Basic Mech Sensors.

Also, C3 was NOT needed for LRM Indirect Fire. Just a Spotter (though the Spotter was NOT allowed to fire).


but what if the spotter fired it's narc or tag? :ph34r:

#6 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 25 May 2015 - 03:35 AM

View PostHotthedd, on 24 May 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

Why couldn't it happen? It is completely canon and within the rules.

How would this change meta builds besides giving up a heat sink or two?

As awesome as it sounds...

Your full understanding of C3 is not that accurate.
As well as the factor that VOIP would then be useless in MW: O and team speak, ventrillo, steam, skype, curse voice, etc all these other services will provide as a better VOIP without team interruptions and 0 tons.

Also this will make people too dependent on using C3 for waiting on a C3 master... there are easily games without it most likely or to many.

Look at BAP, TAG, NARC, LRM's atm. ALl of them depend slightly on the team and those are hit hard due to meta play...

#7 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 25 May 2015 - 04:31 AM

View PostThunder Child, on 25 May 2015 - 02:57 AM, said:

We DON'T have C3. C3 is an Inner Sphere advanced targeting system that allows mechs at long range to fire as though they were at short range, as long as a C3 equipped ally is at short range.
It's a Cone of Fire Modifier. We have no Cone of Fire, so we have no C3, simply put.
C3 would have no effect on this game with the current Precision Shooting.

The In-Game VOIP? A standard feature in all mechs. It's called a RADIO. Although they also use Laser Micro-burst transmitters.

The target info sharing? A standard feature of Basic Mech Sensors.

Also, C3 was NOT needed for LRM Indirect Fire. Just a Spotter (though the Spotter was NOT allowed to fire).

Not exactly. C3 systems were EXACTLY what allowed units to share targeting data. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Network
The to-hit modifiers were merely how these systems were represented in the Table Top game, since you could see all of the units on the board already.

As far as VOIP, I was trying to make the C3 even more useful, that idea can be thrown out. Nightshade is correct to point out this would only make premades on teamspeak have even more of an advantage.

Again, target sharing is only a "standard feature" in MW:O. This ability should require a C3 network.

LRM indirect fire would require target sharing, but again, Nightshade points out that a NARC beacon not jammed by ECM WOULD allow indirect fire, even without target sharing. The beacon functions independently of the 'mech that fired it. TAG would require target sharing, as that signal IS dependent on the 'mech firing the TAG laser.

View PostNightshade24, on 25 May 2015 - 03:35 AM, said:


As awesome as it sounds...

Your full understanding of C3 is not that accurate.
As well as the factor that VOIP would then be useless in MW: O and team speak, ventrillo, steam, skype, curse voice, etc all these other services will provide as a better VOIP without team interruptions and 0 tons.

Also this will make people too dependent on using C3 for waiting on a C3 master... there are easily games without it most likely or to many.

Look at BAP, TAG, NARC, LRM's atm. ALl of them depend slightly on the team and those are hit hard due to meta play...

You are right about the VOIP, I concede that that was not well thought out on my part.

But yes, it WOULD make taking C3 (master or slave) a VERY tough decision. Scouts would have to take it (provided we ever need scouts again), LRM 'mechs would want to take it if they want to be able to indirect fire. (But since there would be an added layer of complexity, LRM indirect fire should receive a buff)

Bottom line: IMO more complexity = better, as long as it is not convoluted. Tough choices lead to diverse builds.

#8 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 25 May 2015 - 06:03 AM

View PostHotthedd, on 25 May 2015 - 04:31 AM, said:

Not exactly. C3 systems were EXACTLY what allowed units to share targeting data. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Network

Your understanding of C3 is flawed and misguided by the Sarna article. Everytime someone quotes it as truth, to prove his point about C3 on the MWO boards I cringe. Don't worry, you are only one out of many who misunderstood the concept of the C3 system because of this article. You are a victim of vague and misguiding wording on an article written by some guy on the internet. Never trust a Wiki completly. If you want to know the truth, go read the source the article is based upon.

Here is how C3 and target sharing actually works (straight out of the current rule book):

Total Warfare; Page 111-112 said:

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).
[...]
Finally, if the spotting unit makes any attacks in the turn
that it spots for another unit, apply a +1 modifier to all of the
spotting unit’s attacks, as well as a +1 modifier to the LRM
indirect fire attack. If the spotting unit makes no attacks, do
not apply these additional modifiers. The spotter can spot for
any number of attacking units to a single target, but it cannot
spot for multiple targets.


Total Warfare; Page 131 said:

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.
[...]
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.


So all a C3 does, is to improve to hit probabilities. It does so by sharing advanced targeting informations, beyond those already shared. Most likely things like windspeed and direction, movement and speed of the target, and so on. Based on that it calculates where to shoot at to more likely hit the opponent. It only works for line of sight attacks. The already shared basic target informations are all that is needed for LRM indirect fire.

View PostHotthedd, on 25 May 2015 - 04:31 AM, said:

Again, target sharing is only a "standard feature" in MW:O. This ability should require a C3 network.

As I have shown you above, sharing basic target informations is standard in the Battletech universe. It is not a MWO only feature.

Edited by Egomane, 25 May 2015 - 06:07 AM.


#9 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 25 May 2015 - 06:28 AM

View PostEgomane, on 25 May 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:


Your understanding of C3 is flawed and misguided by the Sarna article. Everytime someone quotes it as truth, to prove his point about C3 on the MWO boards I cringe. Don't worry, you are only one out of many who misunderstood the concept of the C3 system because of this article. You are a victim of vague and misguiding wording on an article written by some guy on the internet. Never trust a Wiki completly. If you want to know the truth, go read the source the article is based upon.

Here is how C3 and target sharing actually works (straight out of the current rule book):




So all a C3 does, is to improve to hit probabilities. It does so by sharing advanced targeting informations, beyond those already shared. Most likely things like windspeed and direction, movement and speed of the target, and so on. Based on that it calculates where to shoot at to more likely hit the opponent. It only works for line of sight attacks. The already shared basic target informations are all that is needed for LRM indirect fire.


As I have shown you above, sharing basic target informations is standard in the Battletech universe. It is not a MWO only feature.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the rules you cite can be read to mean that indirect fire merely does not gain the benefit of the range modifier that C3 provides to direct fire. This would make sense, due to the fact that LRMs can only travel so far because of their limited propellant supply.

The rules you cite (and thank you for sharing them) make no distinction between "basic" targeting information and "advanced" targeting information. Indeed there is no mention of those terms at all that I can find.

It can be inferred that a spotter/LRM combo WITHOUT a C3 system would be relying on radio communications only, since there are no negative modifiers used if the spotter is dedicating his time to spot instead of fight, but there ARE negative modifiers if the spotter is engaged.

What we have in MW:O is the sharing of "advanced" targeting information, whether the "spotter" is engaged or not.

Perhaps PGI could make it so that units without C3 could share blips, but not doritos?

#10 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 25 May 2015 - 08:46 AM

View PostHotthedd, on 25 May 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the rules you cite can be read to mean that indirect fire merely does not gain the benefit of the range modifier that C3 provides to direct fire. This would make sense, due to the fact that LRMs can only travel so far because of their limited propellant supply.

The rules you cite (and thank you for sharing them) make no distinction between "basic" targeting information and "advanced" targeting information. Indeed there is no mention of those terms at all that I can find.


The range advantage is the "only" advantage the C3 system provides. There is literally nothing else!

No weapon or mech in MWO benefits from any range advantage through spotting or better positioning of a friendly unit, so no mech in MWO has a build in C3 system. LRMs in the Battletech universe do not benefit from the range advantage for indirect fire, so there is also no connection to the LRM system in the Battletech universe for the spotting mechanism.

Your arguments on the connection of those two system are pulled out of thin air, based on a false understanding of the systems. You do not need a C3 to share targeting data. That was, and still is, your base argument. If LRM units firing indirectly over a C3 network gain no benefit from it, and the modifier for the spotting unit not vanishing either, at the same time the C3 system not being needed at all, it is safe to assume that there is no connection between target sharing and C3.

My use of basic and advanced targeting data was to make the working of the C3 system clear to you. The C3 is basically another form of targeting computer. It computes data from additional sources (advanced data) to complement the data of the firing unit (basic data) for a better probability to hit. We don't have that type of data sharing in MWO. If you are refering to the status of the target, like armor loss, weapon status and such... if you can see a unit in Battletech you know its status. On the game table, the only time delay is between you asking your opponent and him showing you the record sheet of the unit.

Please also take note, that the rules do not specify the type of unit needed for spotting. Even a single infantryman can be a unit. He can be used as a spotter. And he doesn't need anything special to do so. All he needs is a line of sight. That was always the only requirement in the Battletech universe. Not even an ECM between the spotter and the firing unit can stop the target sharing (but it can stop C3).

Edited by Egomane, 25 May 2015 - 08:47 AM.


#11 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 25 May 2015 - 10:36 AM

View PostEgomane, on 25 May 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:



The range advantage is the "only" advantage the C3 system provides. There is literally nothing else!

No weapon or mech in MWO benefits from any range advantage through spotting or better positioning of a friendly unit, so no mech in MWO has a build in C3 system. LRMs in the Battletech universe do not benefit from the range advantage for indirect fire, so there is also no connection to the LRM system in the Battletech universe for the spotting mechanism.

Your arguments on the connection of those two system are pulled out of thin air, based on a false understanding of the systems. You do not need a C3 to share targeting data. That was, and still is, your base argument. If LRM units firing indirectly over a C3 network gain no benefit from it, and the modifier for the spotting unit not vanishing either, at the same time the C3 system not being needed at all, it is safe to assume that there is no connection between target sharing and C3.

My use of basic and advanced targeting data was to make the working of the C3 system clear to you. The C3 is basically another form of targeting computer. It computes data from additional sources (advanced data) to complement the data of the firing unit (basic data) for a better probability to hit. We don't have that type of data sharing in MWO. If you are refering to the status of the target, like armor loss, weapon status and such... if you can see a unit in Battletech you know its status. On the game table, the only time delay is between you asking your opponent and him showing you the record sheet of the unit.

Please also take note, that the rules do not specify the type of unit needed for spotting. Even a single infantryman can be a unit. He can be used as a spotter. And he doesn't need anything special to do so. All he needs is a line of sight. That was always the only requirement in the Battletech universe. Not even an ECM between the spotter and the firing unit can stop the target sharing (but it can stop C3).

It isn't a range advantage, it is a targeting advantage that allows you to roll as if you were shooting from the distance of the ally with C3 instead of your distance from the target. No weapons get a longer range due to C3, including LRMs.

How does this work? Because the C3 network shares the targeting data. A player should not be able to "see" the amount of damage of an undestroyed component at 1200m, (but we CAN in MW:O and that is my point)

Your use of "basic" and "advanced" is actually pulled out of thin air to support your conclusion. As I said, there is nothing I can find in the rules that makes that distinction or even uses those terms.

Infantry can be spotters, but we do not have infantry in MW:O. We have other 'mechs. And the information we get from those 'mechs is ...advanced. That is why I say that we have tonnage and crit free C3 systems already, and it would be an improvement to the game if we had to make the tough choice of spending that tonnage and space in order to enjoy this benefit.

#12 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 25 May 2015 - 12:03 PM

View PostHotthedd, on 25 May 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

How does this work? Because the C3 network shares the targeting data. A player should not be able to "see" the amount of damage of an undestroyed component at 1200m, (but we CAN in MW:O and that is my point)


"targeting data" is elevation, wind speed, humidity, direction and speed of movement, range, and such. You don't get a bonus to hit a mech because you know it has less armor on it's knee... :rolleyes:

#13 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 25 May 2015 - 02:16 PM

That's not what I meant, but I get it. The Veteran Forum Warriors are against the idea.

#14 Celtic Warrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 507 posts
  • LocationClan Wolf Operations - Tukayyid - Honolulu HI

Posted 25 May 2015 - 07:23 PM

I don't think C3 will work in this game MWO is not a true simulator. You don't have to lead your target in MWO, the last true sim was MW3 where this made sense.

Edited by Celtic Warrior, 25 May 2015 - 08:03 PM.


#15 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 25 May 2015 - 08:44 PM

View PostHotthedd, on 25 May 2015 - 04:31 AM, said:

Not exactly. C3 systems were EXACTLY what allowed units to share targeting data. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/C3_Network
The to-hit modifiers were merely how these systems were represented in the Table Top game, since you could see all of the units on the board already.

As far as VOIP, I was trying to make the C3 even more useful, that idea can be thrown out. Nightshade is correct to point out this would only make premades on teamspeak have even more of an advantage.

Again, target sharing is only a "standard feature" in MW:O. This ability should require a C3 network.

LRM indirect fire would require target sharing, but again, Nightshade points out that a NARC beacon not jammed by ECM WOULD allow indirect fire, even without target sharing. The beacon functions independently of the 'mech that fired it. TAG would require target sharing, as that signal IS dependent on the 'mech firing the TAG laser.


You are right about the VOIP, I concede that that was not well thought out on my part.

But yes, it WOULD make taking C3 (master or slave) a VERY tough decision. Scouts would have to take it (provided we ever need scouts again), LRM 'mechs would want to take it if they want to be able to indirect fire. (But since there would be an added layer of complexity, LRM indirect fire should receive a buff)

Bottom line: IMO more complexity = better, as long as it is not convoluted. Tough choices lead to diverse builds.

the complexity of this game is already scarring away new players who play this game for the first time the same way a todler on medication tries to play happyland adventures.

People want more complexity in every direction...

weapon brands/ companies with minor buffs (ie different medium lasers with small modifiers like lower durration, extra heat, more fire rate, etc...)

Water slows you down (obvious physics)

collision falling/ high firepower causing mecsh to fall/ bad landings causes fall.

PPC's causing static on the enemy target and HUD glitching for few seconds.

etc...

#16 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 26 May 2015 - 04:03 AM

View PostNightshade24, on 25 May 2015 - 08:44 PM, said:


the complexity of this game is already scarring away new players who play this game for the first time the same way a todler on medication tries to play happyland adventures.

People want more complexity in every direction...

weapon brands/ companies with minor buffs (ie different medium lasers with small modifiers like lower durration, extra heat, more fire rate, etc...)

Water slows you down (obvious physics)

collision falling/ high firepower causing mecsh to fall/ bad landings causes fall.

PPC's causing static on the enemy target and HUD glitching for few seconds.

etc...

The best games are complex.

All of the things you mention would be good (except for knockdowns - those have proven to be a stunlock mechanic).

A proper tutorial and cadet period would alleviate the steep learning curve, and give some relief to the grind (which IMO is the other factor scaring away some new players).

You can have a game that is very simple, but if a game is too simple people will leave due to boredom, especially if there is no further objective, which CW has failed to provide. The only other way to keep players in a simple game is power creep, but that route is also doomed in time.



#17 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 26 May 2015 - 09:17 PM

View PostHotthedd, on 26 May 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

The best games are complex.

All of the things you mention would be good (except for knockdowns - those have proven to be a stunlock mechanic).

A proper tutorial and cadet period would alleviate the steep learning curve, and give some relief to the grind (which IMO is the other factor scaring away some new players).

You can have a game that is very simple, but if a game is too simple people will leave due to boredom, especially if there is no further objective, which CW has failed to provide. The only other way to keep players in a simple game is power creep, but that route is also doomed in time.


I do not think knockdownds can be a stunlock method.

because it A: involves a lot of mechs bigger then you to jumpjet and land on you continiously (people struggle to do this from height which is needed for the Highlanders burial)

B: The enemy is an idiot and continously full speed rams the larger person every time he gets back up (which is as much of a stun lock as him continously over heating/ shutting down)

C: Both.

If a mech just got knocked down, his speed is 0, it would be hard for him to get to full speed and the enemy to full speed at the same time in a way to cause another fall, and if you are already going full speed and are the lighter person you will most likely be the one running away now.

#18 Thunder Child

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 1,460 posts
  • LocationOn the other side of the rock now.

Posted 26 May 2015 - 09:23 PM

Sorry if it sounded like we were attacking your idea Hotthedd. We're not (or at least, I'm not). The issue I had was that so many people get the WRONG idea about C3.

It is sharing advanced targeting data. As Mercules said, this is stuff like trajectories, wind speeds, etc. It's why they need the massive tonnage allocated for a Master C3 Computer. Basic Sensors can share normal targeting data such as what a mech is, where it is, and how damaged it is.

Effectively, if they were to implement C3 in MWO, the closest they could come to right now is what the old Targeting Computer did in MW3. A leading reticle for the target, based on their movement profile, provided you had someone within a certain range. Say, 270m for example.

IF MWO had a Cone of Fire mechanic, C3 would allow anyone on the C3 Network to use an Ally close to the target to reduce their CoF.

However I do totally agree that MWO does need to become more of a "Thinking Man's Shooter" as advertised. To do this, they need to re-evaluate much of the mechanics.

Edited by Thunder Child, 26 May 2015 - 09:24 PM.


#19 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 27 May 2015 - 04:06 AM

View PostNightshade24, on 26 May 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:



I do not think knockdownds can be a stunlock method.

because it A: involves a lot of mechs bigger then you to jumpjet and land on you continiously (people struggle to do this from height which is needed for the Highlanders burial)

B: The enemy is an idiot and continously full speed rams the larger person every time he gets back up (which is as much of a stun lock as him continously over heating/ shutting down)

C: Both.

If a mech just got knocked down, his speed is 0, it would be hard for him to get to full speed and the enemy to full speed at the same time in a way to cause another fall, and if you are already going full speed and are the lighter person you will most likely be the one running away now.

If knockdowns could be re-introduced in a way that couldn't be abused, I would be all for that implementation in MW:O.

In a 1 on 1 scenario, everything you wrote would work perfectly. Unfortunately, we have no game modes where zerging around in a blob is not extremely effective. Therein lies the problem with knockdowns: TTK is so low that getting knocked down means getting killed.

View PostThunder Child, on 26 May 2015 - 09:23 PM, said:

Sorry if it sounded like we were attacking your idea Hotthedd. We're not (or at least, I'm not). The issue I had was that so many people get the WRONG idea about C3.

It is sharing advanced targeting data. As Mercules said, this is stuff like trajectories, wind speeds, etc. It's why they need the massive tonnage allocated for a Master C3 Computer. Basic Sensors can share normal targeting data such as what a mech is, where it is, and how damaged it is.

Effectively, if they were to implement C3 in MWO, the closest they could come to right now is what the old Targeting Computer did in MW3. A leading reticle for the target, based on their movement profile, provided you had someone within a certain range. Say, 270m for example.

IF MWO had a Cone of Fire mechanic, C3 would allow anyone on the C3 Network to use an Ally close to the target to reduce their CoF.

However I do totally agree that MWO does need to become more of a "Thinking Man's Shooter" as advertised. To do this, they need to re-evaluate much of the mechanics.

No worries, I do not get hurt feelings over the internet.

A CoF, especially for running, jumping, or having too much heat, would be a good idea.

To me, being able to see an enemy mech's damage, weapons, and direction in real time from the other side of the map and LoS obstructed by buildings and terrain merely because an allied pilot can target them IS advanced targeting. And I do not think this ability should be free.

#20 Midax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 195 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 05:47 AM

Going to have to agree with everyone, we do not have the equivalent of C3 in game. Even when playing double blind in TT any mech could scan an enemy to get target status and then all mechs had that info. You did not have to rescan after the first success full scan if the targets status changed or if you lost your scanning mech.

The way LRM's work in this game is what is causes this confusion. Lrm's should require switching to a map view to fire and direct LOS shots should not have the same flight pattern as indirect fire.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users