150 replies to this topic

[Sean von Steinike]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 30 May 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

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

Indeed, and it was roundly ignored then.

[StalaggtIKE]

Love this! It elegantly adds value to the lighter chassis, without nerfing the larger ones.

Edit: Just want to add that passive shouldn't stack with ECM, as passive radar would disable all external electronics.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 30 May 2014 - 06:57 PM.

[Monkeystador]

Nice idea but...

The increase of information won't change much. That is because the maps are to small.
Any long termn planning strategies wont work in this final encounter gameplay anyway.

The dominant factor of lights are speed. Translate that into an advantage and you have a role.
On bigger maps fast lances could outmaneuver and gain advantage. After this scenario scouting adds to the gameplay.

All this detection sneakyness is not gonna add on rivercity or forrest colony. Bigger maps first.

[Pale Jackal]

I like it, might increase time to kill as well if you don't have a sensor lock...

Unfortunately LRMs will be substantially weaker, and I feel like with this and ECM, that's a hard sale. Regardless, with some tweaks I'm sure we can find a good spot for LRMs.

Overall, I like it. Can we please remove the fog and haze from the maps though? I already have a big issue with how difficult it is to see on certain maps, and the fact that ECM has removed the ability to rely on your radar. If you give us radar detection and no visibility? Fine. But don't give us crap visibility AND no radar.

Just annoying. Un-nerf night vision and thermal vision already.

[Doktor Totenkopf]

Yes this has posted before, so what?

This was a really well thought out and designed post! Well done Sir! +1 from me. I hope we get this ingame loved it in MW4 and it would help making role warfare comming closer to life.

[Dirus Nigh]

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

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.

The OP has the similar ideas to What Carrioncrows proposed a while back. It would be intersting to compare the two ideas and see if they could create some thing right for MWO.

Damn took me over an hour to find Carrioncrows' balance thread. Check out the third video.

http://mwomercs.com/...rior-balancing/

[Fiona Marshe]

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

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.

As long as you do something about the ECM lock immunity at the same time. ECM should affect lock range a little bit, not make an "I WIN" button regarding E-Warfare.

[N0MAD]

But i say again,fixes that involve complicated mechanics to be layered on top of faulty systems will only address the symptom.
The whole detect/counter/radar system is faulty. it was implemented wrong in the first place leading to problems with associated system, ECM being the major culprit.
PGI made the right decision recently when it said that it was RE writing the code for a certain feature, rather than try layer fixes over the top of unsuitable code.
This i think now is the best option for PGI with several other issues, just rewrite it, dont layer it with more bagage.

[Alex Warden]

Fiona Marshe, on 30 May 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

As long as you do something about the ECM lock immunity at the same time. ECM should affect lock range a little bit, not make an "I WIN" button regarding E-Warfare.

as long as "R" key of a spotter is an "I win button" for hidden LRM boats, i am all for ECM being a counter button...

if indirect fire required a NARC on the target though, i would be more than willing to reconsider

Edited by Alex Warden, 30 May 2014 - 11:35 PM.

[Groutknoll]

How would the sensor range module(ranks 1 and 2) change table 2?

[Rasc4l]

Groutknoll, on 31 May 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

How would the sensor range module(ranks 1 and 2) change table 2?

Just "normally", which means they increase your base range and then you can do different kinds of scanning activities either at 0.5x or 1.0x range. The time it takes to gather certain kind of information from an enemy could be boosted with Target Info Gathering (and some of the features listed require it in the first place).

[wanderer]

I love how some people equate "can spot for LRMs" with "C3 system".

C3 basically lets other people shoot as if they're at the range of the closest available member of the network- so in other words, if I'm firing a PPC at near maximum range, with C3, if I have a buddy at 200m, I "see" him at 200m equivalent.

LRM spotting is an entirely different animal. In Battletech, a frickin single infantry trooper can call LRMs in accurately, never mind an actual combat vehicle. No special equipment required.

That being said, OP has the right idea- though notably, it does help out ECM snipers like the Raven-3L. Long as we can eyeball targets though, it works for me.

[ApolloKaras]

I love how we have 15 pages about jump sniping, and only 4 pages about an idea that will truly work... Lol

[Kyle Wright]

Saxie, on 01 June 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

I love how we have 15 pages about jump sniping, and only 4 pages about an idea that will truly work... Lol

Its insane how this forum is a non stop complaint department, but people taht actually want to help the DEVs with ideas are drowned out by the tears of all the QQers.

Now I get what we are doing here has been tried many times before and fallen on deaf ears but still with in 6 reply's a DEV responded because the OP was courteous and professional about how he created this post. Cry babies dont want some of us to make things better, most would rather watch MWO burn now a days.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Jump sniping is alright, i don't see what the big deal is.

[Rasc4l]

Pale Jackal, on 30 May 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

Unfortunately LRMs will be substantially weaker, and I feel like with this and ECM, that's a hard sale. Regardless, with some tweaks I'm sure we can find a good spot for LRMs.

Overall, I like it. Can we please remove the fog and haze from the maps though? I already have a big issue with how difficult it is to see on certain maps, and the fact that ECM has removed the ability to rely on your radar. If you give us radar detection and no visibility? Fine. But don't give us crap visibility AND no radar.

Just annoying. Un-nerf night vision and thermal vision already.

Since we're discussing ECM further, I would actually like to have it changed a bit to fix exactly this visibility issue you mention. I didn't want to put too much stuff in the OP, because KISS and I wanted it to be compatible with how things are now in as many aspects as possible.

So if PGI were to implement variable ranges as suggested, ECM mechs would no longer basically be required to provide cover to the team, because the team can do this by themselves to a certain extent (passive radar and proper positioning on the map). Because the suggested system has decreased the average number of lockable targets for LRMs per time unit, ECM can now be nerfed to be what it truly is i.e. no bubble. It could then be added to more mechs (and clan mechs) without the fear of OP yellstorm. And perhaps then, maybe Angel ECM could be added to the game but it might be too OP, I don't know.

If ECM is treated like this, then there might be the issue that BAP is OP especially after given the features in Table 2. To make that not an issue, it should no longer counter ECM and the times suggested in Table 2 are only that, suggestions so I think they can be changed if needed to easily balance BAP. Furthermore, ECM should markedly increase the times a BAPper or TIGger needs to gather certain information. Also, marked in Table 2 as the first effects are mech model and type and soon after that we see the mech damage when we see the mech ragdoll on the upper right screen. We also see the enemy weapons then. I don't think this should be so. Knowing what weapons the enemy has is a critical piece of information, which is currently relinquished too easily. Gameplaywise, it would be interesting not to know right away what the enemy has. One would need to observe what the enemy is shooting with until after, perhaps between receiving information on Engine type (N vs. XL) and Ammo (10-15s), you would learn what exactly are you being blasted with. Would make scouting more important, because one would no longer automatically have weapon information right away after targeting an enemy mech.

[Targetloc]

If we got the variable detection range it would be a good time to rework BAP and ECM to make them closer to how they worked in BT canon.

Orignally ECM's only function was to counter the advantages of BAP, SSRMs and Artemis.

BAP was much nastier in double-blind games where it detected hidden units, and if you were in scanning range allowed you to see the full record sheet for your opponent's mechs.

BAP should be giving critical information on enemy mechs. It could easily show icons on the HTAL if the enemy has an XL engine, where ammunition is stored, and highlight areas that have low armor even if the enemy hasn't been shot yet. Imagine how much of a game-changer it would be if you locked a target an instantly knew if he was running an XL engine, or had ammo in his legs?

A yellow cracked shield icon on sections that allocated below 75% max armor, or a red icon if they have below 50%.

ECM would be worth taking just to interfere with that.

Or give BAP its hidden unit detection ability by allowing it very limited detection through buildings or walls (150m or less). Possibly keep that as a quirk for some of the less powerful scout mechs if they mount a BAP.

[General Taskeen]

ECM's ability to turn off a weapon's ability to lock at all also needs to be removed (it should only cause lock on time to take longer, mess with artemis accuracy, and turn off narc, and that's it - in 'gamey' turns it could reduce active range detection down to 500m or something to that affect). With this idea in the OP's suggestion, radar, targeting, and target gathering get an overhaul, which looks interesting, but at the same time ECM needs an overhaul as well.

In stock battle days its been infinitely more fun by not allowing ECM at all, since its so broken and the biggest **** sandwich ECM in any MW game to date.

Edited by General Taskeen, 02 June 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Blood Rose]

I endorse this. It would turn the game from a COD fest into something that actually requires thought.

[Tombstoner]

The range that a mech can be detected at should also scale with speed.

A Jenner running at 140 kph will make a lot of stompy stompy noise easily heard with a microphone.
http://bbn.com/produ...ices/boomerang/

The range that passive sensors can detect a mech should also scale with mech speed. the faster your moving the shorter the range. This forces player to think about movement and positioning. passive sensors is all about sneaking around.