11 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

they might as well put in 360 radar with no LRM targeting(still require visual or aided visual).. since they pretty much already have it.

might as well solve ECM, active/passive sensor, BAP issue as well by doing that.


Just change seismic sensor name to 360 radar, give it to everybody with no module requirement.

• Allow us to turn sensors active/passive. (people complaining about sneaking can turn sensors to passive)
  
• BAP gives sensors extended range.
  
• ECM jams sensors (instead of visual lock), as well as masks people around you from it. no longer ruining visual target lock/hardcounter missiles

Edited by Tennex, 11 July 2013 - 08:28 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Uh, no. For far more reasons that I should be able to count, but chiefly among them: The Electronic Warfare between ECM and BAP si already bad an poorly done. No need to make it worse.

[Tennex]

Unbound Inferno, on 11 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Uh, no. For far more reasons that I should be able to count, but chiefly among them: The Electronic Warfare between ECM and BAP si already bad an poorly done. No need to make it worse.

no this overrides the old ECM/BAP system.
It will now work like in lore.

now ECM will only mask targets from 360 radar. and not from visual target lock. which means you can still lockon with your missiles like you used to even if the person has ECM.

Maybe add a lockon time extension against mechs with ECM.

Edited by Tennex, 11 July 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[Roland]

Yes, this would make the entire system better. I've been thinking about a related issue.

A big problem with balance currently, that is going to continue screwing things up, is that we have these various components which dramatically change the effectiveness of other pieces of equipment, thus making balancing those things virtually impossible.

ECM provides a good example of this... At various points in the game's history since the introduction of ECM, we've had LRM's make dramatic swings back and forth in terms of effectiveness. Why? Because ECM made it such that LRM's would be dramatically more effective against teams that lacked ECM, while being essentially useless against teams that had ECM. This made it impossible to balance them effectively, because the LRM's would either be marginally useful against teams with ECM and completely OP against teams without ECM... or they'd be useful against teams without ECM, but totally useless against teams with ECM.

Seismic creates a similar situation, although not quite as badly against short range brawling mechs. Back in the day, there were a number of builds which could provide some effective fighting that depended heavily upon being able to flank OPFOR and get some shots in on their backs. Currently, this is basically not possible against folks with Seismic... And if you lack Seismic, you are at a ridiculous disadvantage.

Overall, pieces of equipment just shouldn't be able to create such a massive change in the overall gameplay. You shouldn't be able to mount a module (which doesn't even require tonnage.. basically just requires 6 million CB's), and have it result in an infinite increase in that mech's effectiveness. And that's what Seismic is right now. There's never a reason to not bring it, and if you don't, then you have put yourself in a bad position.


The radar model the OP describes would definitely improve the game... it'd mean that missiles were always usable, and that everyone would have some more complex usage of their own radar systems, like we did in MW4.

[Tennex]

Roland, on 11 July 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Yes, this would make the entire system better. I've been thinking about a related issue.

A big problem with balance currently, that is going to continue screwing things up, is that we have these various components which dramatically change the effectiveness of other pieces of equipment, thus making balancing those things virtually impossible.

Off/on buttons are a very bad way to balance.

ECM is a off/on button for LRMs.
and BAP is a off/on button for ECM

HIlls were a off/on button for LRMs. but they changed trajectory to make LRMs more consistent, and therefore more easy to balance.

these off/on buttons create very binomial gameplay.. and very hard to balance for two extremes, much easier if its a fluid spectrum, variables like sensor range or lockon time, which are integers and can be adjusted easily, unlike boolean systems. Which go from one extreme to another and are not only hard to balance, but not fun to play. Because a player going against an off button feel like they have no chance.

Edited by Tennex, 11 July 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[JokerVictor]

We can only hope.

I assume the passive system would be exactly as we have it now, with visual only identification? And likewise, you wouldn't show up on someone's active sensors except within 'X' meter range?

[Roland]

The reality is, I don't think that any of this stuff is even going to be considered, because it would mean recognizing some of the key issues and admitting that they were messed up...Also, I don't think they're going to be up for making a whole new radar model (even though it would almost certainly be better)

[Tennex]

Roland, on 11 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

The reality is, I don't think that any of this stuff is even going to be considered, because it would mean recognizing some of the key issues and admitting that they were messed up...Also, I don't think they're going to be up for making a whole new radar model (even though it would almost certainly be better)

even though they pretty much have it under a different name :\

[General Taskeen]

I believe they said they want to add Active/Passive radar. But how it might be programmed worries me, especially since ECM must go back to its roots as its current programming is illogical.

So far MW:LL has had the best Active/Passive radar in terms of balance and how it interacts in multiple situations, equipment systems, and even weapons. They simply took the Active/Radar concepts from MW3/4 and made it better.

[Tie Ma]

General Taskeen, on 11 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I believe they said they want to add Active/Passive radar.  But how it might be programmed worries me, especially since ECM must go back to its roots as its current programming is illogical.

So far MW:LL has had the best Active/Passive radar in terms of balance and how it interacts in multiple situations, equipment systems, and even weapons.  They simply took the Active/Radar concepts from MW3/4 and made it better.

I really don't see anyway they can add active/passive radar with their current system. Without it being really crappy.

I mean i guess they could make it so you can't target lock a person with passive sensors? But then the person using passive would also not be able to lock anything.

seems kind of dumb cuz then you can't use your missiles. Missiles are really being thrown under the bus a lot now that its tied to visual targeting, and PGI insists on making all information warfare centered around visual targeting.

Edited by Tie Ma, 11 July 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Tennex]

Tie Ma, on 11 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

I really don't see anyway they can add active/passive radar with their current system. Without it being really crappy.

I mean i guess they could make it so you can't target lock a person with passive sensors? But then the person using passive would also not be able to lock anything.

seems kind of dumb cuz then you can't use your missiles. Missiles are really being thrown under the bus a lot now that its tied to visual targeting, and PGI insists on making all information warfare centered around visual targeting.

i really hope they don't do that

[Otto Cannon]

I'd love to see the current ECM scrapped like the terrible idea it was and replaced with a proper system. Since when was 'information warfare' about making a class of weapons randomly useless?