517 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

If the mechanic that is sensors weren't gamebreaky to begin with, this would be perfect, I think. As it is currently, though, the effects of Targeting Computers promise to be not just disruptive but potentially outright damaging to the metagame- because of the Zoom/SensorRange/TIG/CriticalRate increase.

This basically goes away if the kind of computer a 'mech has to mount is based on the number of applicable weapons, as it is in tabletop (because the tonnage/critspace of equipment, as usual, is intended to pay appropriately for the power/effect of the equipment), but that's not what you're doing.

I'm hoping you'll either reapply that restriction, or some other limiting factor (like the exact values chosen for the modification being significantly different from what you've shown here) to keep the TC from being strong enough to actually perform the gameplay imbalancing it currently sounds like it could.

[SpiralFace]

So an idea crossed my head when talking about the command councle elsewhere.

Given that the overall purpose of the command council is to improve "information warfare," what if you had it to where you can target an enemy under ECM cover to help support the team. But with heavy restrictions like no paper doll shown (like UAV,) does not stop the ECM bubble coverage, but only allows a single mech to be targeted, and locks happen 50% slower as the ECM is not completely negated, you loose lock immediately after mech is out of LOS, And condones no teammate perks like improved lock time or missile clustering (keeping TAG and NARC useful.

I feel it would add a bit more counter play to ECM, support the "information gathering" portion of the system, and have its own unique perk that makes it different enough that it doesn't become a "poor man's targeting computer."

Just a thought.

[Jody Von Jedi]

I'm trying to look at this objectively. Let's compare Apples to Apples: what do you get for 3 tons?

Clan
Targeting Computer Mk III

Weight: 3 tons.

Slots: 3 slots.

Zoom distance: [+4.25]%

Sensor range: [+4.25]%

Time to gather target info: [-42.5]%

Projectile weapon projectile speed: [+8.5]%

Beam weapon long ranges: [+8.5]%

Beam weapon max ranges: [+8.5]%

Increased crit chance for projectile and beam weapons: [+18.5]%

IS:

Command Console

Weight: 3 tons.

Slots: 1 slot.

Zoom distance: [+5.25]%

Sensor range: [+6.0]%

Time to gather target info: [-20.5]%

Weapons aside, the CC is better @ Zoom and Sensor range. Target Info Gather needs a buff. I'm hoping that is the case since this: NOTE: Once again, all values are placeholders.

Since David states the values are just place holders, lets hope they rein in the Clan values a little or buff the CC a little, or both. Because, with the values as they are now, I might just have to swap my allegiance......Nah, who am I kidding, I'm a Steiner.

Jody

[wanderer]

Quote

but hey... there are always ecm mechs in your team...no?

In a PUG? HA. The funniest thing is, that 1.5 ton "Jesus Box" contributes more than 1.5 tons of pretty much anything else on an Atlas-D-DC. It's not just for you. It's what lets your lance move along undetected, shields them against missile lock, or even counter-ECM's with a push of the J key.

And as far as the command console goes, it should provide benefits similar to a targeting computer Mk III. Clan and IS tech are supposed to balance, after all- and 3 tons of statbooster should be producing the same level of effects for both. Or more appropriately, a lesser area-effect buff since it's a COMMAND console, after all.

[wanderer]

Quote

Everything is unimpressive compared to the Frankenequipment Jesus Box.

This should be your sig line.

[Thorqemada]

Imho it would be better to handle the TC in the way that it is like the Jump Jets bound on Weight.

20 to 40 tons is MKI and 41 to 50 ton MKII etc. every ten tons and its values be the same throughout all MK grades - that is probably way better to handle.

[AUSSIETROOPER4]

I get sick of games that do not introduce any new game mechanics but instead just rely on cheap tricks that are in effect just buffs to existing mechanics.

we missed an opportunity. Here to see how a targetring computer could be used for the first time in a mech game ever.

[Cimarb]

Navid A1, on 10 June 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

in my mind when one chooses a DDC, it has to have ECM... otherwise, why DDC?
ECM is tonnage that could have gone to weapons... (i carry a BAP on my D just in case, i should say)
not having ECM can be frustrating sometimes... but it teaches (forces) you to fight carefully and tactically. It should be noted that there are dozens of elite DDC pilots who fight well and become your nightmare with their ECM.

but hey... there are always ecm mechs in your team...no?
besides, protecting a DDC atlas is much easier than asking for protection.

There is never enough ECM coverage, and NOT bringing an ECM version of a mech that can equip it is hurting your team. As wanderer said, there is NO piece of equipment that, ton for ton OR crit for crit, comes even close to the effectiveness ECM brings to a single mech, let alone the team.

Alik Kerensky, on 10 June 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

This would be my issue with the TC... hopefully it does not stack. That and the CC should maybe buff all IS mechs too if within a certain range a CC, and not be stackable with another CC's even if within range of multiples.

I really think CC/CTC should be required before ECM can be equipped, and should also be required for arty/air strikes or taking command of the lance/company and issuing commands. CC should then be given the ability to impart it's not-as-good bonuses to all allied units within a certain radius (just like ECM), but only one CC/CTC bonus applies per mech. This would make it similar to a Paladin Aura or other class buff in WoW, where the "best" buff overrides any lesser buffs currently active.

This would be essentially the same functionality that ECM already provides, but in a different area - attack bonuses instead of protection.

[Sharknoms]

Cimarb, on 11 June 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

There is never enough ECM coverage, and NOT bringing an ECM version of a mech that can equip it is hurting your team. As wanderer said, there is NO piece of equipment that, ton for ton OR crit for crit, comes even close to the effectiveness ECM brings to a single mech, let alone the team.


I really think CC/CTC should be required before ECM can be equipped, and should also be required for arty/air strikes or taking command of the lance/company and issuing commands. CC should then be given the ability to impart it's not-as-good bonuses to all allied units within a certain radius (just like ECM), but only one CC/CTC bonus applies per mech. This would make it similar to a Paladin Aura or other class buff in WoW, where the "best" buff overrides any lesser buffs currently active.

This would be essentially the same functionality that ECM already provides, but in a different area - attack bonuses instead of protection.

Doesn't work.
According to the high-valued Lore/TT only Heavys and Assault can equip Command Consoles
http://www.sarna.net...Command_Console

[Calamus]

Cimarb, on 10 June 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Weapon convergence is a lie - we already have 100% weapon convergence! even before the placeholder piloting skill.

The only way to simulate the increased accuracy of weapons is to increase the projectile speed, as Khobai already did a great job of explaining a page or so ago.

Well, that doesn't make me feel better at all. Other mechanics in the game are broken or not functioning in reality, so they're added other weirdo mechanics? It fits the M.O of the Devs, but it does not engender any confidence or acceptance of goofy mechanics added to the game.

[Cimarb]

Iguana Iguana, on 11 June 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Doesn't work.
According to the high-valued Lore/TT only Heavys and Assault can equip Command Consoles
http://www.sarna.net...Command_Console

I think we have all accepted that the Command Console in this game is never going to actually be a second pilot, so adding a second pilot seat is not needed. If the mech can equip the 1 crit, 3 ton CC in the game, it fits in this case.

[DustySkunk]

Navid A1, on 10 June 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

while i appreciate your compliments about myself... i'll give you an example:

lets have a target locust north of your position running west at 150kph. it is 800m away. lets assume you are an assault mech and have 35+ tons of direct fire weapons so you can get 15% speed boost with mark VII.

A PPC projectile after speed boost has a 1725 m/s velocity. It will travel to the target in 0.46 seconds.
A PPC projectile without speed boost has 1500 m/s velocity and will travel to target in 0.53 seconds.

thats a 0.07 second difference. that locust can travel 2.9 meters in that time. (to get an idea of 2.9m in MWO stand next to a wall and read your range to see how close it is).

So now, you have to shoot 2.9 meters closer to target and your accuracy in hitting that spot is the same as your shooting accuracy on a spot 2.9m further.

you should also keep in mind that higher projctile velocity means that you have higher chance of missing if there is a slight error in your aiming.

by your logic... lasers all have 100% easy mode accuracy. yet with lasers, you'll miss if you are not dead center on target.



...
how about giving you the tools you need to aim better?
this from page 6 of this topic: page 6

^^ This ^^

I can't agree more and I appreciate the objective assessment of what these values actually mean in terms of gameplay. Furthermore, this case study essentially gives the TC the best circumstances to shine. The best targeting computer using one of the weapons with the fastest projectile speeds firing at a Locust (one of the fastest mechs available) at near max distance running perpendicuarly to the shooter... and the only difference it makes is seven hundreths of a second and 2.9 meters. This is already dangerously close to the limits of human reaction ability. 2.9 meters at a distances of 800 meters in game is the difference between one or two pixels, and average human reaction time is roughly 215 milliseconds (well above the time difference in our example). Now say you halve the distance, or use a slower weapon... You can quickly see that they it make no significant difference in gameplay at all.

The bottom line is that the currently proposed implementations of the TC and CC are nearly useless, with little to no gameplay impact. They are implementations that provide no new functionality and are uninspired. I reiterate from my earlier post in this thread:

They have had two years to work on these pieces of equipment.

They have had hundreds of great ideas from the community.

They have several generations of Mechwarrior games to draw inspiration from.

They have 30 years of Battletech lore to draw from.

There is no good excuse for what they have come up with. If the developers read this, please reconsider your design decision and communicate with the community. Quite honestly I'd rather wait another year and have something that's exciting which actually effects gameplay rather than these glorified stat bonus modules masquerading as useful equipment.

[Cimarb]

DustySkunk, on 11 June 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Quite honestly I'd rather wait another year and have something that's exciting which actually effects gameplay rather than these glorified stat bonus modules masquerading as useful equipment.

How about we take what we can get now, give constructive, non-insulting input on what we would like to see, and in a year they give us something better? If all they did was say, "we need another year to do anything with it", would you really have been happy with that option?...

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Cimarb, on 11 June 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

How about we take what we can get now, give constructive, non-insulting input on what we would like to see, and in a year they give us something better? If all they did was say, "we need another year to do anything with it", would you really have been happy with that option?...

I doubt the majority of the people around here would have been anything less than livid. It seems to be one of the three emotional states commonly found here on the forums (those being Livid, Cynical, and Demoralized.)

Edited by Quickdraw Crobat, 11 June 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[DustySkunk]

Cimarb, on 11 June 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

How about we take what we can get now, give constructive, non-insulting input on what we would like to see, and in a year they give us something better? If all they did was say, "we need another year to do anything with it", would you really have been happy with that option?...

I apologise if I'm coming across as insulting, but I'm a little insulted to be honest so it's hard not to be. I'll rein it in though. To answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy with it. Although I would be happy waiting for another year if there was more transparancy and communication with the community. That's why I asked them in my post to reconsider and communicate with us. So, if they said "Hey guys, we aren't ready to release this yet but here are some ideas we are trying out," regularly kept us updated and then took a year to get there I would be happy.

Edited by DustySkunk, 11 June 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[Cimarb]

DustySkunk, on 11 June 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

I apologise if I'm coming across as insulting, but I'm a little insulted to be honest so it's hard not to be. I'll rein it in though. To answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy with it. Although I would be happy waiting for another year if there was more transparancy and communication with the community. That's why I asked them in my post to reconsider and communicate with us. So, if they said "Hey guys, we aren't ready to release this yet but here are some ideas we are trying out," regularly kept us updated and then took a year to get there I would be happy.

You would be one of the rare few, sadly. They have tried to increase communications, but while the moderates have become positive, the negative people in the community are still blaring away on their warhorns regardless. If they announce that it will be another year before CW comes out, how exactly do you think that is going to be received, no matter how much communication they promised?

[BlackDrakon]

CC sux and TC is way overpowered imo. I know TC should be better than CC but not this much. Give more perks to the CC to make it viable.

[DustySkunk]

Cimarb, on 11 June 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

You would be one of the rare few, sadly. They have tried to increase communications, but while the moderates have become positive, the negative people in the community are still blaring away on their warhorns regardless. If they announce that it will be another year before CW comes out, how exactly do you think that is going to be received, no matter how much communication they promised?

I do recognize and acknowledge that it seems like PGI has been making an effort as of late. A good example is how they have responded to the community's feedback about the clan logos. This has me cautiously optimistic that things might be changing for the better. However the community does have a right to be angry and that anger isn't easily assuaged (especially given how passionate Battletech and Mechwarrior fans are about this universe). I won't claim to be an expert, but I have been here since closed beta and have watched in relative silence as promises have been broken and development continued (seemingly despite the community) behind closed doors. There are a lot of people that feel really burned right now. Is there any reason why they shouldn't? It is my belief that PGI has a lot of ground to cover before they are completely in good standing with this community again.

Were you ever a fan of Tribes? Tribes: Ascend is a good case study for a game with a long history and a passionate fan-base that was mishandled by a developer. Much like PGI (up until this point at least~ I'm hopeful they are turning it around), they broke promises, didn't listen to their players, and scandals abounded. Eventually the game was abandoned in a broken state in favor of a new project (Smite) by the dev team. Players who spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars on the game were left with an unfinished product. Weapon/class imbalances, rampant use of exploits/cheating, and a significant amount of promised content was never released - this was the legacy of that game. People still are raging about the situation. I don't want MWO to end up like Tribes: Ascend.

Clear, regular communication and follow-through can do wonders. CW was slated for.. what was it supposed to be... 6 months after CB finished? It's mid 2014 now and people are angry. I think people would be much more forgiving if they saw something, *anything* that showed progress or talked about their efforts. Give us weekly updates. Tell us what's working and what isn't. If nothing major has been happening, talk about the weather. Point is: just let us hear from you. Ask US questions. What we have gotten has been either silence or cryptic forum posts talking about possible features. The dev logs are a step in the right direction but they are too few and far between~ not to mention vague. Worse, we have been sold features that apparently hadn't even been developed yet, which brings me back to the thread's original purpose about the TC and CC.

The clan pack has been on sale for many months now. Besides the price (we won't talk about that here), it lists a number of "new and exciting" mechs/equipment. People have paid for that pack expecting that they were buying a finished product, which was given due dilligence. Keep that in mind for a second.

If this thread had popped up a year ago, it would have been fine. "Hey guys, PGI here. We have been thinking about the TC and CC, specifically what they should do. We were thinking about having them do X, Y and Z. What do you think about that?" WOW that would have been fantastic. We could have given constructive feedback and not be in the mess we're in now. Instead, just about a week before release of the product we have this. Can you honestly say that this is the result of months of work and feedback from the community? That they couldn't have done better by the community? That less than a week before release they aren't even sure of exactly what these two pieces of equipment do (placeholders?!)...that it inspires confidence in you?

Can you really say that these two pieces of equipment have been given due dilligence? The answer is no. At best, they are a starting point for conversation.

That's why I'm insulted. That's why I haven't left detailed constructive feedback here on this thread as you implied I should do. My reasoning is that there has been constructive feedback on what the CC should do for two years now, and apparently it has fallen entirely on deaf ears. I would understand if this had been what the community wanted from the get-go, or if there was some technical reason anything else couldn't have been implemented. I would understand if there had been some sort of dialog going on and this was the end result. None of these things have happened. It feels rushed. It feels ill-prepared.

I'm beginning to feel a bit like MWO is turning into Tribes .... and I'm praying we won't get burned.

I do believe in constructive criticism however. So, in closing, my piece of constructive feedback is:

Do a forum search for "command console idea" and sift through the hundreds of great ideas there. Almost any one of them is an improvement.

Edited by DustySkunk, 11 June 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[Cimarb]

Just to point out, I shared several ideas for how the Targeting Computer should work, none of which were what we got. I am pleased with what we are getting, though, because it is far better than a dead CC...and I actually do like the way they did it on top of that, even if it wasn't my idea.

edit for typo

Edited by Cimarb, 11 June 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[DustySkunk]

Cimarb, on 11 June 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

Just to point out, I shared several ideas for how the Targeting Computer should work, none of which were what we got. I am pleased with what we are getting, though, because it is far better than a dead CC...and I actually do like the way they did it on top of that, even if it wasn't my idea.

edit for typo

Well, I am legitimately glad than you like the implementation of the TC and I totally agree that having a CC that does something is far better than just a dead CC!

My feelings are that the TC and CC could have been handled better than they have been. I'll leave at that so I'm not tempted to write another book lol