62 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

PGI should implement the World of Tanks spotting mechanic.

Maybe not exactly like WoT, but something more similar to the world of tanks spotting mechanics would definitely be better than what we have now.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Honestly, this goes along with one of my major issues with the game.
Falloff damage and visual/sensor range. I always thought the sensor/visual range should be equal for the simple fact it makes sensors just as valuable as your eyes. Currently radar isn't all that important unless you are lurming, and puts way too much emphasis on visual detection which certainly isn't helped by ECM and its stealth umbrella (still dumb btw). Not only that, you shouldn't be able to do damage outside the max visual/radar range unless using artillery weapons (which unfortunately is LRMs instead of Arrow IVs like it should be) which as brought up before, is partially thanks to falloff damage. Which I might add is part of the reason Gauss was king in the early days, the ERPPC might have been a valid weapon back at release if it had a 150m gap where Gauss couldn't touch it or at the very least wouldn't have invalidated it.

This is one of those things where I don't care so much about realism, I prefer the fog of war from the MW4 days and kinda miss the heavy fog matches where you actually had to rely on your sensors and special sensors like ECM and BAP were extra important (and where ECM and BAP were balanced).

Edited by majora incarnate, 11 June 2014 - 01:44 AM.

[Fiona Marshe]

On several maps, enemy mechs are already invisible due to the colour washes being used.

Forest Colony: if the target isn't backlit by the sky or a cliff, I can't see them (B/G colour blindness). I've literally noticed an atlas-ddc walking up the road at 200m when he opened fire on me; and visibility on the road is 800m+

Caustic Valley: several places (2 line valley and a couple of "fog" areas), again I can't see any mechs due to the washout. Last match; commando, spider and firestarter all engaged in the that area. Couldn't visually see them until they jumped over the ridge and were outlined by the sky.

[TexAce]

Eyes are OP now???

I can't see **** on forest colony at 200m already and now you wanna add fog to it??

Edited by TexAss, 11 June 2014 - 04:33 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Kibble, on 11 June 2014 - 01:15 AM, said:

PGI should implement the World of Tanks spotting mechanic.

O hell no.

As much as i like WOT. That is the one thing i hate about it.

[Livewyr]

World of Tanks, this is not.

If you do not wish to be seen, find concealment. (Even on Alpine, there are ridges to hide behind as you move closer to the other side.)

Age old art of stealth troop movement.

[Eddrick]

Take ECM into account. Then try again.

[KingCobra]

(Should be determined by Sensor range.

Currently, I can see a 'Mech trundling along at 3km. I can even identify exactly what that 'mech is, at that distance.
That does not feel right to me. Particularly on Alpine. Why scout when your Atlas can see the entire enemy team and the direction they're going in, AND ID each 'Mech ... From the spawn points!

We have 3 Vision modes,
-Normal, For everything. No range limit
-Thermal, For low visibility conditions. 750 range hard limit.
-Night Vision, For poor light conditions. 750 range hard limit.

I'm curious to know if anyone would support reducing Normal Mode's vision radius to match the 750 of Thermal and Night, But that Sensor Upgrades would extend the range at which you can see a 'Mech as well as being able to Radar detect them at that range?

It would have the side effect of making your settings irrelevant for view distance. I know many players run the game on minimum in order to remove things like trees and other ground clutter when taking sniping shots (as well as the normal FPS boosts) so that you can't hide a small 'mech like the Locust or Commando in the shrubbery.

Would also make camo somewhat effective at hiding your 'Mech in the Terrain when you're at the edges of someone's vision radius, as i would imagine a kind of fade in as you approach their vision range,)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First thing is =(MAP SIZE'S ARE TO SMALL) most our spawn points are only 1000=1500 meters apart plus the fact your right visual should be limited to sensor range and LOS. But the other side of the coin is we still do not have a short range 100 meter 360% radar.So many times I have been killed by a light mech you just cannot see coming in from behind your mech.

First you back turns yellow then red then dead all in 15-20 seconds or faster if its multiple light mechs which just sucks.

Edited by KingCobra, 11 June 2014 - 06:11 AM.

[Noxthanious]

I hate magical additions to games. "you cant see further just because". You should be able to see as far as anyone can IRL.

But then again there would be other changes I would make to get mwo back towards simulator status.l

[Fut]

darkkterror, on 10 June 2014 - 11:30 PM, said:

I can't say I like the idea of Mechs magically disappearing just because they're beyond a certain range.

Pretty much what I was going to say as well. It makes no sense to set an arbitrary limit on how far our eyes can see - especially when you consider how amazing human eyes actually are.

Besides, it's exciting when you're out on the battlefield and you can spot movement in the distance but your sensors can't get a lock on whatever it is.

[Zeriniel]

KingCobra, on 11 June 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

First thing is =(MAP SIZE'S ARE TO SMALL) most our spawn points are only 1000=1500 meters apart plus the fact your right visual should be limited to sensor range and LOS. But the other side of the coin is we still do not have a short range 100 meter 360% radar.So many times I have been killed by a light mech you just cannot see coming in from behind your mech.

First you back turns yellow then red then dead all in 15-20 seconds or faster if its multiple light mechs which just sucks.

Then again, make the maps too big and the matches will drag on. Without cohesive objectives, and better map design, sensors are largely wasted. However, the lights beating up your back can be countered with Seismic stop behind cover sometimes to make it work) and/or not getting caught by yourself. Honestly one of the key issues is the lack of any feedback when you're taking back damage. A bug that has persisted for the last year and a half. No sound, and sometimes, no visual cue.

[KingCobra]

(Then again, make the maps too big and the matches will drag on. Without cohesive objectives, and better map design, sensors are largely wasted. However, the lights beating up your back can be countered with Seismic stop behind cover sometimes to make it work) and/or not getting caught by yourself. Honestly one of the key issues is the lack of any feedback when you're taking back damage. A bug that has persisted for the last year and a half. No sound, and sometimes, no visual cue.)

In MechWarrior4 most of the maps were double to x3 the size MWO maps are and we always found each other through scouting with light mechs? I would not go say x6 the size of MWO maps as your point would be valid on to big of maps.

I believe your right on a back bug 99% of the time in almost dead before I have any indication there is a mech behind me. Only when a friendly player starts shooting close to you or you happen to see weapons fire from behind do you turn around to confront the enemy mech and by that time your already dead.

[Noxthanious]

Zeriniel, on 11 June 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Then again, make the maps too big and the matches will drag on. Without cohesive objectives, and better map design,

This! On assault mode you should have the base with all the turrets like we have but then also in two other locations maybe the "power generator" and "base sensors".

Where a team has options.

1.strait up attack the base.

2.attack the power generator to disable X% of the turrets.

3.attack the base sensor station to decrease the range of the base defenses.

or just something to this effect.

[Zeriniel]

KingCobra, on 11 June 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

In MechWarrior4 most of the maps were double to x3 the size MWO maps are and we always found each other through scouting with light mechs? I would not go say x6 the size of MWO maps as your point would be valid on to big of maps.

I believe your right on a back bug 99% of the time in almost dead before I have any indication there is a mech behind me. Only when a friendly player starts shooting close to you or you happen to see weapons fire from behind do you turn around to confront the enemy mech and by that time your already dead.

Yeah, but the maps back then were't hilly masses of mud piles with collision boxes that extend passed the terrain itself. Not to say the maps in MWO are bad per se, but they aren't the pinnacle of great level design. A couple are good, a couple are passable, and some are downright atrocious.

[Randodan]

I believe that the sensors are merely for employing weapons effectively, while eyeballing the target is good as it is. Don't change any visible range aspects of the game.

Seeing the target doesn't mean that my sensors are able to help with weapons just yet. When I see a target, I can always try and hit it manually.

Again, no change needed.

[Zeriniel]

Noxthanious, on 11 June 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

This! On assault mode you should have the base with all the turrets like we have but then also in two other locations maybe the "power generator" and "base sensors".

Where a team has options.

1.strait up attack the base.

2.attack the power generator to disable X% of the turrets.

3.attack the base sensor station to decrease the range of the base defenses.

or just something to this effect.

Something like this should be part of Attack and Defend Mode (coming 60-90 days after CW). PGI has expressed that as the next game mode, and the first game mode to feature somewhat real objectives.

Randodan, on 11 June 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

I believe that the sensors are merely for employing weapons effectively, while eyeballing the target is good as it is. Don't change any visible range aspects of the game.

Seeing the target doesn't mean that my sensors are able to help with weapons just yet. When I see a target, I can always try and hit it manually.

Again, no change needed.

Again, it's less about Sensors vs Eyeballs (although having real Active/Passive sensor system would add a layer of depth to the cat and mouse games), and more about level design. You should not be fired upon within the first few seconds of the match. And the levels should be so obtuse that everyone either has to head down the same paths to find the enemy, or there's nowhere to maneuver through without being seen.

[mogs01gt]

To artificially affect visual range is a bit of a bad idea.

IMO fixing the maps to allow better cover and more flanking areas makes more sense. We are in mechs and should use our sensors more!

[l33tworks]

FatYak, on 10 June 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

Personally, i think alpine peaks needs a revamp, i think it would be great if all the low areas were filled with a dense fog with just the peaks of the ridges and hills in the sunlight, would kinda make a two tiered level.


Would indirectly solve the long distance issue on that map, and allow for some interesting flanking movement concealed in fog

Really loving this idea . Put it in the suggestions please, or I can.

Should look something like this. The new alpine.




Really dense fog, maybe even thick enough to reduce radar range by 30%.

Edited by l33tworks, 11 June 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[Randodan]

Zeriniel, on 11 June 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

Again, it's less about Sensors vs Eyeballs (although having real Active/Passive sensor system would add a layer of depth to the cat and mouse games), and more about level design. You should not be fired upon within the first few seconds of the match. And the levels should be so obtuse that everyone either has to head down the same paths to find the enemy, or there's nowhere to maneuver through without being seen.

Much bigger maps would help that issue, I believe.

[Randodan]

l33tworks, on 11 June 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Really loving this idea .
Really dense fog, maybe even thick enough to reduce radar range by 30%.

Thermal Imaging should burn through fog easily, albeit its range should be affected a bit.