WardenWolf

I was playing a game this evening on RCN, sniping in my 2x ERPPC Cicada. I had ECM which is what I figured was keeping me from being targeted, but toward the end of the match one gentleman accused me of exploiting. He said there was a bug where they couldn't see me up on the hillside, and while I can't confirm that I can say I was never shot at directly for the whole match... which is more than ECM alone would seem to be able to do for me.

I was in grid C5, on the hill near the out of bounds line. I went in via the Testing Grounds afterward to find the spot again, and I believe it was at or near POS: 2953.5 1593.9 90.5

I grabbed a screenshot of what it looked like from my perspective, in case that helps:



Can anyone that was in that game, or has seen this situation before, confirm that it is indeed a bug? If so I will avoid using that spot in the future to be fair to the other team.

I have begun to notice something in the aftermath of the changes to vision modes. Previously, almost all long-range sniping was done via the blue-toned thermal mode - but with that gone, and with the new thermal ineffective past about 700 meters (by design), sniping is now done on normal vision for the most part.

Thus it would seem to me that hiding in the trees should be effective cover to conceal your position, so long as you aren't firing or your mech isn't sticking up out of the cover. This is *not* the case, though, and I suspect I know why. But first, let me explain a situation recently where this was very noticeable.

I was in one of my Atlases, designed for long-range combat (ERPPCs and Gauss), on the normal Forest Colony map. I started on the hill-side, and moved to one of the nearby ridges that is covered with trees but offers a good view over the water and middle valley area. I crept forward, spotted some enemies and fired upon them (giving away my position both by sticking out of the trees a little and shooting). I received return fire from multiple mechs, and seeing that I was outgunned even at that range I pulled back, and moved about 30 meters to the side.

However, even though I was now back in the trees where I couldn't see anything and did not continue firing I kept receiving incoming hits, even after I had relocated well away from where I'd originally been. I had to physically move down off the hill, and as soon as I did the weapons fire ceased. This tells me that the enemy could visually see my mech, even though I was in dense tree cover and they were outside of thermal view range.

Now how could that happen - that I couldn't see them but they could see me?

One option is, of course, targeting - but I don't think they had a mech close enough to me yet (I was blind firing at them initially, not targeting them) and further I was in a D-DC with ECM.

The second, and only other option I can think of, is that they could simply see my mech at that distance despite the apparent cover... and this got me thinking. What is the draw-distance on features like trees? Could it be that they are being drawn for me, since I am right in the midst of them, but not for opponents ~1km out? If so, that seems like a pretty big problem! It would mean you would have no way of knowing if soft visual cover is effective unless you knew how far the enemy was away and what the draw distance was... which I suspect varies depending on the quality settings in-game.

Has anyone else encountered this? Any insights? Obviously one could just avoid ever using purely visual cover, but it seems like this would be a good dimension to strategy to have in a game like this.

So I see lots of discussion here on the forums about the UAC5, and the mechanics behind it have been revamped once or twice during beta already. But with the way the mechanics work now, we have potential for a *huge* problem with other Ultra ACs come out (which will happen whenever the Clans arrive, I assume). The UAC20 could do 40 points of damage in a split second, and there are 50 ton Clan mechs that can mount two of them (for 80 damage across one or maybe
two armor segments nearly instantaneously). That is a huge problem!

There is also the issue of jamming / unjamming, which just happens automatically now. I'd like to see some skill brought back in there, but not something that can be programmed into a macro that gives players with better mice / keyboards and edge.

So, I wanted to propose a change to the way Ultra ACs work in general which addresses both of these issues! Here goes:

1) UAC weapons would fire 50% faster than normal ACs when the trigger is held down. The 'double tap' thing goes away entirely. This means you can't get 40 burst damage out of an UAC20 when they arrive, but they will do substantially more DPS than the normal variants.

1a) If you release the trigger, it goes into a cool-down that is the same as a normal AC weapon of its caliber. This is the option if you never want to jam.

2) UAC weapons would have a chance to jam after each shot - but *not* just random. After a single shot the chance is 0%, after the second shot (while the trigger is held down) it is 10%, after the third shot 20%, and so on - up to the point where after 11 shots in a row it is guaranteed to jam. This more accurately represents weapons where jamming can happen because they are heating up as they are used a lot (like the rotary gun on the A10 Warthog).

This gives a bit of safety to firing small bursts - you aren't likely to jam with only 2-3 shots in a row, though it could happen sometimes.

2a) The exact jam rates might need to be tweaked based on testing, and there may need to be a longer cool-down after you stop firing a long burst as well - these things could be looked at and balanced appropriately.

3) Here is the kicker: once a gun jams, the way to un-jam it is to power down your mech and then power back up. The idea here is that the power-up sequence would involve clearing the jam, and it is something you would have to move out of direct combat to do safely. It also can't just be macro'd really, or not to any benefit.

3a) Unjamming should also cause you to lose a round of ammo (the one that is stuck) - I'm not sure if that is factored in now or not, but I think it makes sense.

So, what do you folks think of that idea?

I've been pondering game modes recently, and it occurs to me that the two we have now represent 'games' well, but not realistic combat. For example, controlling resources is important: but having one light mech being able to 'control' multiple resource points vs a few bigger, slower mechs (which is how games have ended several times for me) is just not how things would work.

Instead, I would like to throw the following ideas out:

"Battle" game mode: Opposing sides start in similar fashion to Assault mode, but with no bases. The objective is to destroy as many of the opposing forces as possible within a set time frame, like a deathmatch... but there is a twist.

Real-life battles rarely involve one side being completely wiped out, so once half the mechs (in total, counting both sides) are destroyed a 60-second timer starts. If that timer goes off, the team with more surviving mechs wins... and the only way to reset the timer is for a mech to hit an opposing mech with weapons fire. That means the timer won't go anywhere while the battle is 'hot', but if one team or the other disengages then the side with superior remaining forces wins - unless the underdogs try and force to keep the fight up.

This sort of fits real-life warfare: how often does one army completely destroy the other? It is usually the case that both sides take losses, and the side taking the worse losses pulls out (loses).

"Defend" game mode: One side is assigned to defend a base from either capture or destruction. This way the teams have a single goal, instead of having to try and fill both the attack and defense roles. It is rare in battle for both sides to have important bases in such close proximity, so this more closely matches one side attacking the other. I'd call it "assault", but that name is already taken.

Also, a few possible tweaks:

- Base destruction rather than capture: have a few buildings that need to be destroyed, with several hundred HP at least, instead of capture. This makes 'hit and run' a viable strategy, and gives the attacker an edge (when otherwise the defending team generally has the upper hand).

- Unknown base location: have it so that the attacking team has to actually scout out to find the base first, giving the smaller mechs a purpose (scouting, or anti-scout screening). You could even have people set up groups of decoy mechs, looking like they are defending something that may be a base but upon closer look is just a distraction.

- Multiple bases: have a few targets that the defenders are trying to protect, and see how many the attackers can take out within a given time period.


Forum Mods - I understand that I am technically 'suggesting' something, and if you want to move it to Suggestions I understand... but please consider leaving it here in the more populated forum for a bit of discussion first Thanks!

What does state rewind look like from the eyes of the person being shot at? Will we be taking damage from lasers that appear to be missing us?

And a follow-up: if yes to the question above, why is the shooter given priority over the target in this change? Knowing where an enemy is firing is important in the course of trying to dodge fire, and it seems that this with make it more complicated to see when weapons are actually impacting.

Please note that I pilot almost exclusively Atlases, so I'm not a light pilot whining about being hit more - I just want to know what it looks like from both sides, and how that has affected the design choices.