150 replies to this topic

[BARBAR0SSA]

The only thing I would add is.

Spotting targets needs a big boost in rewards

[Kyle Wright]

Only snag i could see, is that some of the maps are so small that Active sensors would be able to sweep the majority of the map from the start. Also how would this work on Tunnels? I remember when seismic was super strong and you could catch a tunnel rush before it happen.

[Rasc4l]

shad0w4life, on 29 May 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

The only thing I would add is.

Spotting targets needs a big boost in rewards

Yes. Things like this would be the next step. Also TAGGing and NARCing should naturally increase and perhaps their rewards as well unless the basic boost provided by the new game balance is already enough.

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Only snag i could see, is that some of the maps are so small that Active sensors would be able to sweep the majority of the map from the start. Also how would this work on Tunnels? I remember when seismic was super strong and you could catch a tunnel rush before it happen.

If the radar ranges I provided in my proposal are deemed inconvenient for current map size, then I'm sure a general coefficient of 0.8-0.9x or 1.1-1.2x should fix the problem. The curves nevertheless show the wanted direction that lights have less sensor image while heavier mechs have more and lights can even scan farther (to make the locust viable ;). If the curves need to shift a little to accommodate maps, it should be an easy fix to the proposal.

[JohnnyWayne]

Well, not much to add. I like it and want to say something too.

One thought I really loved that was mentioned in the introduction of the gameplaypillars: Scout roles that could target multiple mechs for info gathering (no LRM lock in my opinion).

[Livewyr]

I had suggested this kind of thing as a part of mech efficiencies in my suggestions megathread in the feature suggestions forums.

[-Natural Selection-]

JohnnyWayne, on 29 May 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Well, not much to add. I like it and want to say something too.

One thought I really loved that was mentioned in the introduction of the gameplaypillars: Scout roles that could target multiple mechs for info gathering (no LRM lock in my opinion).

I am kinda with you on that one. Which is funny as I spend allot of time in a lights spotting for friends.

IMO in order for a mech to pass on a lock it should only do it by means of tag, narc, or uav. Other than that, the lrm user acquire they own lock via their personal target locking system.

Achieving a lock just because another can view the target makes little sense to me.

The only other exception is could think of is if a mech equipped with a locking system achieved a lock which would be passed along maybe via mech with command console (<--dirty word).

[Rasc4l]

JohnnyWayne, on 29 May 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Well, not much to add. I like it and want to say something too.

One thought I really loved that was mentioned in the introduction of the gameplaypillars: Scout roles that could target multiple mechs for info gathering (no LRM lock in my opinion).

Yeah you're right. BAP and and Target Info Gathering should both provide an additional targeted mech for a cumulative total of 3. This way the lights could more efficiently target enemy mechs for LRMs and it would in general help relay info from the enemy to own team.

Would also help towards making LRMs work in competitive drops. To achieve this and not make PUGs suffer LRM-apocalypse, the enhancement of LRMs should obivously be based on efficient team work, which is hard to achieve in PUG matches. For example, TAGs could be cumulative, IF they reach the enemy mech in greater than 45 degree angle. i.e. Hunch with 9 TAGs is not cumulative and the other one with TAG really has to flank the enemy to get the benefit. Perhaps 3-4 would be max cumulative effect here i.e. about half a circle?

Also to spread LRM-fire more to achieve better area denial, an LRM-boat with TIG or BAP should enable the pilot to maintain 2 enemy mechs locked for LRMs (2 should be max, so not cumulative). To decide which target is fired upon when LRM-weapon group button is pressed, could be simply determined by left and right. Because there are only 2 targets, one of them is always right and one left. When pressing fire, torso twist movement to that side could be a simple trigger to help the pilot guide the missiles to the right target. Mouse button is quick event so just a minor twitch would be enough for this.

[Kyle Wright]

Okay reworking sensor range based on the map would make sense.

I feel though if you are going to allow scouts to target up to 3 mechs certain things need to be changed in other systems.

1) the paper doll on mechs needs to just show the silhouette and none of the weapons load out.
2) Target Info gathering Module would be reworked so that it allows mechs that have it equipped to scan mechs and determine weaponry.
3) Right now we more or less have a C3 network implemented in game, which allows All mechs to see what a forward scout sees. In order to further make scouts and individual sensors viable. A scout can not relay targets to say a missile boat or other mechs. Other mechs would need to have either their own sensors pick up a enemy or be in line of site. That would require your scout pilot to actually radio/type in information for the force. Now if you wanted to do a pseudo C3 network between a scout and say a Atlas -DDC then the Atlas would need to have a Command Console in the mech ( for once 3 tons would be worth a damn).


Other then that dude, you are golden and anyways we can help you let us know. Glad a dev chimed in as well.

DEVS once you utilize our thinking caps along with yours we can help brainstorm ideas like this. Create a section of the forum and call it the "Think Tank" and let the community submit ideas for your review.

[Rasc4l]

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

Okay reworking sensor range based on the map would make sense.

I feel though if you are going to allow scouts to target up to 3 mechs certain things need to be changed in other systems.

1) the paper doll on mechs needs to just show the silhouette and none of the weapons load out.

I don't think this is necessary. The screen can fit several targeted mechs:

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

2) Target Info gathering Module would be reworked so that it allows mechs that have it equipped to scan mechs and determine weaponry.

True and same goes for BAP.

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

3) Right now we more or less have a C3 network implemented in game, which allows All mechs to see what a forward scout sees. In order to further make scouts and individual sensors viable. A scout can not relay targets to say a missile boat or other mechs. Other mechs would need to have either their own sensors pick up a enemy or be in line of site. That would require your scout pilot to actually radio/type in information for the force. Now if you wanted to do a pseudo C3 network between a scout and say a Atlas -DDC then the Atlas would need to have a Command Console in the mech ( for once 3 tons would be worth a damn).

I think making it more difficult for forward scouts to relay information would not be beneficial. Not entirely sure if you're saying that but anyway.

[Bhael Fire]

I kinda like the idea of a mech's signature being tied to the size of its engine; I can easily see the range at which a mech is targetable being equal to twice the size of its engine in meters.

Example: A mech with an XL 350 would be targetable up to 700 meters, while a mech with an XL 150 would not be targetable past 300 meters.

While, I wouldn't mind if they introduced active and passive radar, I don't think it's necessary, as long as they just reduced the range at which mechs can target other mechs.

[Targetloc]

Rasc4l, on 29 May 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Making the engine the detectability parameter instead of mech tonnage sounds like an ok idea. I would still keep with my proposal though because it already provides what you yearn for: light mechs that can sneak on enemy. Locust@passive has an image of 250 m and 450 m at active, which should already make it a good scout. The primary light, Jenner, has similar values at 400/575 m. This is still clearly less than heavier mechs to make it a good scout but still higher than locust to give locust an edge (locust is only 57 % of jenner's mass).

Also, the biggest engines may not end up being in biggest mechs and do XL ppl need more problems, really? And because the numbers I have put up are more or less arbitrary, I'd rather adjust them to our ends than chain the sensor image to a new parameter, which e.g. may not always properly reflect the mechs physical size, which also should be considered.

The issue is that right now you will never, ever, ever see a competitive Jenner that isn't running a 300 XL.

There are tons of lights (the majority even) that only go 90, or 110 kph. But they're terrible in those setups in MWO... without some serious advantage for taking a smaller engine we'll never see any of the build diversity that's supposed to be there.

It's especially bad in the medium range. Most mediums in this era go 64 kph, or 86 with a lighter loadout or advanced tech. Those mechs are so horribly disadvantaged in the current system, the iconic AC20 Hunchback is significantly less effective than the laser and missile variants.

What if your 'shows up on active/active radar' range was (2 * Engine rating) + (2 * chassis weight)?

[Rasc4l]

Targetloc, on 29 May 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

The issue is that right now you will never, ever, ever see a competitive Jenner that isn't running a 300 XL.

You have a point there.

Targetloc, on 29 May 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

What if your 'shows up on active/active radar' range was (2 * Engine rating) + (2 * chassis weight)?

Would make a 350std atlas visible at 900 m and XL300 jenner at 670 m. Yeah, could work very well actually. So this would be the active sensor image. The passive ranges could be then be set based on those. The scanning ability would still go with mech tonnage to give lights clearly an edge there.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Rasc4l, on 29 May 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Oh and forgot to mention that for friendlies, the normal detection range of 800 m should apply to avoid FF among PUGs.

I'd say that, with IFFs and whatnot, you should always know where your friendlies are. It's not like we've got maps that cover 50+ km or what have you.

Edit:

Also, some mechs could get sensor range quirks. Jagers, for instance, are supposed to have a super advanced targeting/tracking array (the big fin sticking out of their back). Give them a boost to both active and passive detection range, inherent to the chassis (say, +10% passive, +20% active or something).

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 29 May 2014 - 05:26 PM.

[IceCase88]

I approve.

[Rasc4l]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 29 May 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

I'd say that, with IFFs and whatnot, you should always know where your friendlies are. It's not like we've got maps that cover 50+ km or what have you.

+1.

Except when under ECM disruption. The device itself perhaps should be divided into ECM and Angel ECM and then only mechs like Atlas DDC can have the Angel version to cover other mechs while the norm only covers the mech it has or has minimal range (~30 m). And perhaps some lights like spider need to have the Angel as well to make them able to confuse the enemy by running among them.

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 29 May 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Edit:

Also, some mechs could get sensor range quirks. Jagers, for instance, are supposed to have a super advanced targeting/tracking array (the big fin sticking out of their back). Give them a boost to both active and passive detection range, inherent to the chassis (say, +10% passive, +20% active or something).

Exactly this is how Role Warfare can and should be implemented. And maybe the Devs can take some freedoms here to provide radar quirks to mechs which might not normally have them just to make them viable.

[Kyle Wright]

Rasc4l, on 29 May 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I think making it more difficult for forward scouts to relay information would not be beneficial. Not entirely sure if you're saying that but anyway.

The way C3 network works is that you have a C3 master and C3 Slaves. the master acts as a relay station that sends out target information to everyone in that network. What I am getting at is currently we are able with 1 spotter to show every enemy mech that doesnt have ECM, acting like a C3 network that is only suppose to exist on certain mechs.

Target Info gathering Module does nothing but help you lock on faster... WHY call it target Info Gathering if its not gathering Info. Anyone who can obtain a lock can clearly see what a enemy mech has. By having generic paper dolls for enemy mechs and not knowing what weapons are on that opponent adds mystery to an engagement. it make a commander rely on his scout to tell him what he is up against instead of right off the back knowing.

EX. Imagine a Stalker 500M away around a corner. All you know is its a Stalker, could be a LRM boat, Srm Boat, Laser boat who knows. Makes you hesitate before rushing it in a attack. Call in your scout mech with Target Info Gathering and he tells you its a SRM boat with Medium laser, allowing you to lead you lance into engaging out of his range. With out that scout you could be walking into a world of hurt or a easy kill without every knowing till the shooting began.


Edit: All i am saying is there is a reason why military's use Electronic Warfare Equipement. and why things such as advance sensors on certain mechs were more useful for scouting in the lore cause it took specific equipment and the right pilot to give a commander the right intelligence so he had the edge when the fight begun.

Edited by Kyle Wright, 29 May 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[Vercinaigh]

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

-snip-

Now everyone takes the module as a must have for any and all mechs. solution?

[Bhael Fire]

Kyle Wright, on 29 May 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Target Info gathering Module does nothing but help you lock on faster... WHY call it target Info Gathering if its not gathering Info. Anyone who can obtain a lock can clearly see what a enemy mech has.

Target Info Gathering does NOT speed up target lock...it speeds up the time it takes to display the target mech's loadout info.

[ArmandTulsen]

All of this would be SO much better if the targeting worked like it should, and we had C3 master and slave units to share battlefield data with.

As is, everybody has C3 automatically. That's BS.

[Kyle Wright]

Vercinaigh, on 29 May 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Now everyone takes the module as a must have for any and all mechs. solution?

And that is now a very good point. Would you rather people getting information for free or would you rather them having to waste a module slot instead?