Jump to content

Pgi & Paul: How To Deliver 2/4 Of The Core Pillars Of Mwo

Balance

150 replies to this topic

#41 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 07:23 PM

I only had to look at the pretty pictures to endorse this thread.

Not enough roleplay on the battlefield, but it is getting better. I would like to see more rewards for passive actions over damage/kills. Give the lights a reason to do what lights do!

#42 IceCase88

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 689 posts
  • LocationDenzien of K-Town

Posted 29 May 2014 - 07:28 PM

Maybe we can get some of the TV screens to actually do something. If not then I should be able to stream my netflix or other videos to them. :huh:

#43 TheCaptainJZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,172 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:58 PM

I like the general concept of light mechs having better sensor suites. I wouldn't put their detection out farther than 1000m. An assault mech should have a normal sensor range of 600 - 700 m or so? the specific range should be based on tonnage, with some mechs having +/- "quirks." For instance, the Treb could have better sensors to improve it's role as a medium LRM boat.

I would not make mechs less detectible as proposed. It starts getting too complicated. Let's just take the core of the idea and run with that. That is, I can see you, but you can't see me (based on mech differences). If they do implement the idea, we can tweak it from there.

Active vs Passive sensors adds a nice dynamic too, but I would just say, make it cut ranges in half or 2/3rds or something like that (MW3 I believe?). For example, a locust and atlas are 500m apart. Locust can see out to 1k, atlas out to 700 m. locust switches to passive mode. locust can now see out to 500 m, but atlas can't see locust unless it closes to 350 m.

I would drop the "visibility" factor in the OP and just change sensor ranges to simplify things for everyone while keeping the core of the idea.

I am a fan of MechCommander and would not be opposed to having different sensor suites available. Perhaps it could be an upgrade but not available to all mechs? Or maybe a sensor suite is an equippable item like weapons with tonnage (basic sensors have no weight?) Certain mechs can have intermediate or advanced sensors if you have the tonnage for them? Not sure if this idea matters with modules. Also, having sensor range shorten the faster you move (MechCommander 1) might be something worth exploring.

#44 Alex Warden

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • 1,659 posts
  • Location...straying in the Inner Sphere...

Posted 29 May 2014 - 10:45 PM

sounds not too bad, but one thing i would change in your table: the Raven is a destined scout/ EWFmech, it should have one of the higher radar ranges, mabye not 1000, give the locust an edge there, but maybe 900?

Edited by Alex Warden, 29 May 2014 - 10:48 PM.


#45 Sergeant Random

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 462 posts
  • LocationPeriphery

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:02 AM

Ive read in one of the fluff threads that internal structure, myomers and armor has interwoven sensors that relay information to the cockpit.

Since cockpit sizes are approximately the same, you can say that the processing power available for sensors will be different for different size mechs. Larger mechs with their abundance of mass will require more processing power for these "internal sensors" - and will have less available for sensors.

Conveniently paves the way for damage control modules that are biased towards heavy mechs, or specific chassis or variants like the AC20 hunchbacks.

Just saying. Hopefully useful.

#46 Wolfways

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 6,499 posts
  • LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:22 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

From an LRM POV it has merits.

Maybe i'm missing something here but all i'm seeing is a nerf to LRM's. Can someone please explain how this changes LRM's in any way other than having to get closer to mechs to lock them?
Otherwise it sounds good :huh:

#47 JohnnyWayne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 1,629 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:48 AM

View PostRasc4l, on 29 May 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

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.


Woh woh woh, not so fast. LRMs in pug matches are already omnipresent. We don't need to expand on this. What I implied is, that you actually get more information for your team, but only a lock on for the main target you have. Where as I memorize every state of a mech on the field whenever I can and this would greately benefit to that, spamming LRMs like there is no tomorrow already takes place.

With more locks on the field this feature would greatly increase their usability and probably required them to have reduced damage (to TT value => 1.0) and less shake.

#48 Wolfways

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 6,499 posts
  • LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:02 AM

View PostJohnnyWayne, on 30 May 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:


Woh woh woh, not so fast. LRMs in pug matches are already omnipresent. We don't need to expand on this. What I implied is, that you actually get more information for your team, but only a lock on for the main target you have. Where as I memorize every state of a mech on the field whenever I can and this would greately benefit to that, spamming LRMs like there is no tomorrow already takes place.

With more locks on the field this feature would greatly increase their usability and probably required them to have reduced damage (to TT value => 1.0) and less shake.

Wouldn't this help spread the damage then, if multiple targets are locked instead of all LRM's concentrating on one target?
I don't know how bad it is in the low ELO area though.

#49 N0MAD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:26 AM

All ideas have merit.
To me it sounds complicated and un realistic ( PGI is likely to go for it).
Couple of things in the real world, in 1944 a Very basic and i mean basic radar could pick up a Uboats snorkel(roughly the size of a bucket) at long range. So obviously size isnt a factor that should count in detecting, especially at ranges of what 1km?.
Most sensor suites are quite large, the more refined or specific the larger and more intergrated the system has to be.
Therefore it makes sense that a Larger vehicle will have the space and power to run bigger/beter Sensors than the smaller ones.
Realism is overrated and not to be looked at in a game? well then just have Magic wand Module that cloaks the mech.

Passive/Active radar? great idea people been suggesting that since CB.
Had ECM, BaP been properly implemented along with A/P radar you would have a very different scenario now in information warfare.
Fix the implementation of ECM and BaP, ECM is just a magic wand atm and BaP cant work as BaP because of the magic wand.
Role warfare is a different situation altogether, fine to say give such and such a chassis a purpose.
Thats all well and dandy when you have maps large enough to support that, when the majority of maps are so small that you can fire at the opposing spawn from yours or be there in under a couple minutes, well how do you fullfill a role other than that of gunfighter.
Why use medium mechs?
Small mechs are such a hmmm almost exploit in this game, the bad networking, hitboxes, hit detection, lag, excessive speed that really if youre half smart and wana pad your stats just hop into a Small mech, why bother with most Mediums they are cannon foder, if Smalls werent what they are more would use Meds.
Bring it on Light pilots.......just let me tell you im the second worst pilot on the planet but if i wana pad my stats i jump into a Light so dont tell me about Skillz.

Back to the OP.
pls dont take this personal.
Your ideas are complicated and focus on only syptoms, wanting to add more layers on to an over bloated system.
+1 for wanting to improve the game tho, keep it up.

#50 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 04:25 AM

View PostTheCaptainJZ, on 29 May 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

I would not make mechs less detectible as proposed. It starts getting too complicated. Let's just take the core of the idea and run with that. That is, I can see you, but you can't see me (based on mech differences). If they do implement the idea, we can tweak it from there.

Active vs Passive sensors adds a nice dynamic too, but I would just say, make it cut ranges in half or 2/3rds or something like that (MW3 I believe?). For example, a locust and atlas are 500m apart. Locust can see out to 1k, atlas out to 700 m. locust switches to passive mode. locust can now see out to 500 m, but atlas can't see locust unless it closes to 350 m.

But the lights (=kids)! I think they need to be less seen. If compromise needs to made and only scanning or detection is changed from the default 800 m, then I'd still go for making mechs less detectable than changing their scanning capabilities. But hopefully both could be done. And sure, active to passive transition can be made a constant 1/2 or 2/3 of full sensor range if simplification is required.


View PostWolfways, on 30 May 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

Maybe i'm missing something here but all i'm seeing is a nerf to LRM's. Can someone please explain how this changes LRM's in any way other than having to get closer to mechs to lock them?

Well nerf in a way that it would make situations rarer, where you have to fight in the shade due to LRM storm. This has been the general PUG n00b complaint for people who haven't learned to use cover yet. LRMs would in general require "more skill" to use, because the boat itself or a helper needs to do more active work to target the enemy. Now that LRMs have been "nerfed" this way, PGI should be more free to boost them, because that boost will no longer translate into instant LRM apocalypse due to the nature of Information Warfare.


View PostJohnnyWayne, on 30 May 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

Woh woh woh, not so fast. LRMs in pug matches are already omnipresent. We don't need to expand on this. What I implied is, that you actually get more information for your team, but only a lock on for the main target you have. Where as I memorize every state of a mech on the field whenever I can and this would greately benefit to that, spamming LRMs like there is no tomorrow already takes place.

With more locks on the field this feature would greatly increase their usability and probably required them to have reduced damage (to TT value => 1.0) and less shake.

See above. Giving the benefit to TIG and BAP to provide more mechs targeted would IMHO only partially alleviate the new IW meta, where enemy mechs are less visible. It would not even bring mech visibility to what we have now so I don't think there would be any fear of additional targeting capabilities bringing LRM hell.


View PostN0MAD, on 30 May 2014 - 01:26 AM, said:

All ideas have merit.
To me it sounds complicated and un realistic ( PGI is likely to go for it).
Realism is overrated and not to be looked at in a game? well then just have Magic wand Module that cloaks the mech.

pls dont take this personal.
Your ideas are complicated and focus on only syptoms, wanting to add more layers on to an over bloated system.
+1 for wanting to improve the game tho, keep it up.

Don't worry, none taken personal, all comments welcome. :) I can appreciate the demand for realism but I've long ago concluded that we're still playing a game, not a really really hardcore simulation so we can take certain freedoms with realism if it improves gameplay. When gameplay is fine, we can consider making tweaks and improvements to improve realism if it doesn't happen at the expense of gameplay, which is king.

Edited by Rasc4l, 30 May 2014 - 04:26 AM.


#51 Wolfways

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 6,499 posts
  • LocationIn a shutdown overheated mech near you.

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:47 AM

View PostRasc4l, on 30 May 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

Well nerf in a way that it would make situations rarer, where you have to fight in the shade due to LRM storm. This has been the general PUG n00b complaint for people who haven't learned to use cover yet. LRMs would in general require "more skill" to use, because the boat itself or a helper needs to do more active work to target the enemy. Now that LRMs have been "nerfed" this way, PGI should be more free to boost them, because that boost will no longer translate into instant LRM apocalypse due to the nature of Information Warfare.

I think the problem with balancing MWO is that there is so much variety in the way matches play out, i'm guessing because of ELO. The forums are filled with "Lights die too easily", "lights are OP", "LRM's need a nerf"...although not many "LRM's need a buff" ;)
In my matches there aren't many meta PPC/AC mechs, a wide variety of weapons are used, which means that lights aren't getting 1-shotted. In fact they are usually the most survivable mechs (i say that from both sides of the fence). They are one of the reasons my wife stopped playing and she is one of the best players i've seen. I can see how they'd be 1-shotted all the time when there are a lot of meta mechs around though.
Same with LRM's. I see a few LRM's flying around but nothing compared to other weapons, and in my ELO at least, people have learned the difference between breaking LOS and using cover, so unfortunately the majority of the time LRM's are useless. I personally don't like indirect fire too much and couldn't care if it was removed completely, but LRM's are so bad in direct fire that just about any other weapon is better...and tbh i think the only "buff" that could help LRM's would be to stop making "arena's" and make battlefields instead (more like Tourmaline or Alpine) but then people would complain about not being able to get into brawl range even more, something which i've rarely had a problem with.

I do understand though that the game can't be balanced for all ELO's but i don't like things like different radar ranges dependent on mech size that give lights another boost in lower ELO. I would like the idea even more (i do think it's a great idea btw) if i didn't think lights were a little bit OP (in my ELO anyway).

Maybe i'm just being selfish, but i've been waiting for my favourite mech (Mad Dog Prime) since closed beta and i think that when/if it comes it will be useless :lol:

#52 Veranova

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 542 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:55 AM

THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
OMG YES!!!

#53 bmulkshake

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 54 posts
  • LocationSouth East Wisconsin

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:46 PM

I would love to see the sensors reworked. I liked the active/passive sensors in mw4. I remember complaining about the radar system back in closed beta because I couldn't understand how a radar system wouldnt/couldn't work in 360 degrees. I don't get how 35 tons of metal can walk up behind you, shoot you in the back then run away without being detected. I find it hard to believe that sensors can not be mounted on the rear of a mech. Hell, my 2002 POC minivan has sensors on it's rear bumpers.
I used to love this game but it's gotten quite stale, there's no point to it, it's like being eternally stuck in practice mode. things like this any many more need to be implemented in order to make it fun again.

#54 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 30 May 2014 - 01:17 PM

Still like the idea. We proposed this back in Closed beta.

#55 Khavi Vetali

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 277 posts
  • LocationKooken's Pleasure Pit

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:48 PM

An Active-Passive radar system would be, well, certainly better than what we have now. It would add much more depth and strategy. It's how it should have been in the first place.

#56 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 30 May 2014 - 04:09 PM

Simply changing the ECM function to more accurately reflect reality would be a start.

It isn't Angel ECM yet.

#57 Kaldor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 30 May 2014 - 04:22 PM

I cannot believe I liked a post from Bryan Ekman.... (mind blown)


@ OP: Awesome post man! If I could like it 100 times I would!

#58 StandingCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,069 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:20 PM

Something like this might just make it a little harder for me to avoid this game... be nice to stick to the pillars.

#59 ApolloKaras

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,970 posts
  • LocationSeattle, Washington

Posted 30 May 2014 - 05:49 PM

+1

Good idea OP. Its not over complicated, you explained everything very well, not going to need a complete re-work of the entire game lol.

Good stuff!


Quick question though, 2 locust spot one another @ 800 out (active radar for both), are they showing up on each others radar or do we need to get within 450m to get a lock on the other locust?

Edited by Saxie, 30 May 2014 - 05:57 PM.


#60 Here5y

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 377 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 06:12 PM

Excellent Idea... Implement this ... ASAP :-D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users