Well. That's one long post... Do not take offense, but I'm probably gonna have to break it up and tackle each section, one section at a time. Here goes!
Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
So, what system do we have that allows us to reduce the range penalties on the to-hit dice rolls we don't use to attack targets in MWO? I've looked all over my Mechbay and I can't find any systems or modules that do it.
Turns off what sensors? Basic visual detection abilities? Basic coms? There's no equipment that's allowed to do that in BT. At most you have systems like the Chameleon Light Shield and Null/Void Signature Systems, which make a 'mech harder to detect. ECM, at best, can reduce the range at which sensors can detect the 'mech carrying ECM, and that's only when visual detection is impeded by atmospheric conditions, or a target being beyond visual range.
Actually, there are no dice in MW:O. Thought that was obvious. (A little joke here. Please, queue the laughing.)
The thing is, by presenting where the enemy is in a nice box does make it easier (for me at least) to hit enemy targets. It might not equate to the same thing as TT C3, but it also is technically only a partial C3. We have it for free for 0 tons. I do not know if they intend to ever place C3 into the game, so for now, we have it for free. We share target locks and target data.
Now, you ask how does this sharing of target data helps me? Good question. When a friendly targets a mech outside my sensor range, but in line of sight, I can also lock on and get a red box around the target. Even if they are so far away that I can barely see them, I find I can hit these targets easier. How? Aim for the center of the red box. It will work even if your target is 1500m away.
I was referencing, as I thought was very clear, to the way things where done in other Mech Warrior Titles. Namely, MW4. In MW4, you could change your sensors from passive to active, and the setting would give you different forms of sensor feedback. This is actually in lore as well, but not normally announced, as most mechs run with their sensors on Active most times. Very rarely does a mech run with Passive settings.
ECM does a lot of things. In this version of the MW games, it does a lot of things. I can agree that I feel ECM does more than it should still, but it isn't all powerful either. Actually, it's a lot weaker than what it once was.
As far as I know, there are no intentions announced (that I know of) for Stealth armor, the Chameleon Light Shield and/or Null/Void Signature Systems. Two of these systems are also considered lost tech and are not in active production in the current setting/year of this game. (ECM also does not distort a mech from visual sight. It just hides it from your minimap/targeting sensors. ECM also does not hide a mech from thermal or night vision. This leaves it still different from Null/Void and the CLS.)
Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
I'm not sure I'd call a target box a "range penalty compensator", but it is handy to shoot at under low visibility. As for sharing target locks... C3 doesn't allow any benefits to LRMs. They've always had indirect fire capabilities using a spotter:
I know, but in this game, the C3 computer is how they worked indirect LRMs into the game, while trying to retain the "skill" side of the game at a peek. This is also why our sensors do not work on targets we can no see. It was a design choice/technology interpretation of the designers of this game. So far I, and many others, do not have a problem with this design/interpretation of the system.
Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
A more interesting question is going to be "How is PGI going to implement Clan targeting computers in MWO?" Those are going to have to face the same sorts of hurdles you've just listed, and they're much closer to being implemented, what with the Clan packs coming in the next few months.
We do not know. I'd like to know as well. There are several theories floating around the forums right now, one of which is a floating squad on a locked target that will show your lead times for your weapons. AKA: If you aim for the square when you shoot, your weapons should connect. There is also another concept that it might just set your convergence at the distance of your target you have locked, instead of whatever is just under the reticule.
There are plenty of things that can be done. I do not have the answers to this particular question, so I can no answer with anything more than rumors and concepts.
Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
As for my own opinion? Well... I'd rework several things. I'd change how BAP, ECM, sensor detection, target info gathering, and indirect-fire LRMs work, to begin with;
- 'Mech sensors would be broken down into three modes; RADAR, IR, and Magnetometer.
- RADAR mode would function as our sensors do now.
- IR mode would detect targets at a reduced range, with hotter targets being easier to detect. It would function poorly in hot environments, and localized environmental effects like the fires in River City could be used to hide from it. ECM would not affect IR sensors.
- Magnetometer scanning would detect targets at a reduced range, with larger targets being detectable at greater ranges. It would function poorly in environments with high levels of metallic ores, and near large metal objects like city buildings or crashed dropships. ECM would not affect Magnetometer scans.
- ECM would no longer block missile locks or jam 'mech sensors at close range. The stealth bonus would reduce RADAR detection range by 75%, and would double times for target acquisition and missile lock. ECM would block BAP against all friendly targets within a 180m radius.
- Target information gathering would be restricted to general health percentage breakdowns, without a detailed paperdoll or loadout information displayed.
- BAP would gain the target information gathering abilities (detailed damage paperdoll and loadout/system health information). It would no longer jam ECM.
- Indirect-fire LRMs (no LoS for firing 'mech) would suffer accuracy penalties in the form of a looser spread - double the spread radius of direct-fire LRMs. Use of TAG or Narc Beacon by a spotter would bring the spread back to normal dispersion.
That way, we'd have a more sophisticated information warfare game; ECM would still be very valuable, but not as overpowered as in its current form; LRMs would be useful under all ciscumstances, but would require more active involvement by spotters to be fully effective in indirect-fire mode; BAP would be very valuable for both scouting and focusing fire on vulnerable targets; scouts would be very useful for getting target info and for LRM scouting, and ECM would still be very useful for them (since a small 'mech running cool with Narc/TAG would be very hard for Magnetometer or IR scanners to detect).
There are things I wouldn't mind changing either. However, I can not change things. If you think you have a good concept, you can always post your concept in the "Suggestions" section of the forums. Just don't be upset if they don't use it, as they have their own ideas.
PS: I could see and agree with many of your proposed changes. If I could just place it in and try it, I'd love to try it out and see how it worked. However, I can not, so I can't test it beyond theorizing how it would work. This probably should go into the Suggestions forum.
Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:
Then for C3? I'd give the Master unit a target designation function which would be visible to every other unit in the network. I'd also place a smaller box-in box "aiming aid" on any 'mech spotted by a C3 unit, giving better weapons accuracy in low-visibility conditions. ECM would jam any Master/Slave equipped units in it's radius and prevent them from seeing or placing target designations.
The currently used game platform (Cryengine), does not like to do screens in screens. This has lead to several problems with Advanced Zoom in the past, and continue to be a problem to this day still. However, even with that said, I do not thing that would be overly helpful in this version of the game. (Either that, or you need to explain it more clearly, as Imight not be fully grasping your concept.
Gremlich Johns, on 13 March 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:
Then it should be called something else other than Electronic Countermeasures. IRL, if ECM is on too long, it gets targeted and destroyed by either artillery or airstrike. PGI implements ECM in 3050 as the most advanced cloak in BT - stealth armor (re-introduced in 3071).
ECM= Electronic Countering Measures.
It counters electronic devices on enemy mechs. Sounds like a form of ECM to me.
Do also recall this is 1000 years in the future, and based on lore written in the 80's. A lot of the science we know and take for granted now didn't really exist back then, or was not as refined/well understood.
I can, once again, say that I can agree with ECM preforming more than it should, but I feel that there are reasons for this and that the current system of ECM does make sense with this iteration of MW/BT. It could probably still use to be tweaked, but it isn't nearly as powerful as it once was. It has seen attention and has been well balanced once BAP started to be able to counter it, and soon NARC will be helping even farther...
My post was only to show the time gap. It'd be like dropping a working TV into 1000 AD, or even 30 AD. Or any time before electricity was invented. It would have been considered magic. So it's only fair that technology such as this might also be considered "magic". It's 1000 years more advanced than what we have. They have light fusion engines, that run on light hydrogen. From our understanding, a reactor that runs on light Hydrogen would have to run very hot and would be hard to contain. In contrast, a heavy Hydrogen would be easier to work with. But a Battlemech runs of a "safe" fusion reactor that works off light hydrogen... (They also have things like Jumpships, we no one knows how it works. It just does. (Probably by punching a small worm hole in the fabric of space/time...))
2
(If your a little kid... Sorry then... 
)
).
