Jump to content

A Proposal For Targeting Computers

Upgrades Balance Metagame

8 replies to this topic

#1 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,745 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:00 PM

The Clans’ Answer to Poptarts: a Proposal

Hello. Foxclone Mechworchs would like to welcome you to another installment of A Reject’s Rambles. The subject this time: the Targeting Computer and how it might be made to be awesome, as well as a potentially very powerful counter to poptarts without invalidating regular builds.

Pertinent documentation: [David Bradley, on Targeting Computers and Command Consoles]

Note: this thread will assume, for the moment, that the variables proposed in the Command Chair, if not the numeric values, are set, and that the Targeting Computer’s functionality will be injected into the game shortly. Posts consisting of ‘this is useless, the TC doesn’t actually do anything” are of no help whatsoever; please don’t make them.

Now, let us begin with a short review. The proposed Clan targeting computer is essentially an offensive sensor package which allows more accurate, and more quickly accurate, fire for direct-fire weapons. Its effects are limited to the ER PPC, the Gauss rifle, the Ultra-series of autocannons (and the CRAC series of bodged LBX stand-ins), and lasers of all types and sizes. The Targeting Computer comes in seven sizes, listed as the Mk. I to Mk. VII, with each extra Mk. Adding one ton and one crit slot to the device. The values listed in the Command Chair post are purely placeholders, but there are nonetheless a given set of variables the proposed targeting computer affects. They are:

-Zoom range (meh)
-Sensor maximum range (helpful)
-Targeting information gathering speed (TtPD, or Time to Paperdoll. Quite helpful)
-Beam weapon effective and maximum ranges (important)
-Projectile weapon shot velocities (very important)
-Chance to critically hit an enemy (of absolutely crucial importance)

As one can easily see, all of these improvements are generally aimed at assisting with long-range direct combat, which jives with the targeting computer’s tabletop implementation pretty well. Unfortunately, the listed numbers are somewhat lackluster – while it’s a very nice package, paying seven tons and (more importantly for many Clan ‘Mechs) seven critical slots for the bonuses is quite painful, and most would consider the targeting computer to be not worth its investment.

I have an idea, as well as a somewhat different opinion.

The targeting computer is a system which works very well for players who like to focus on a smaller, easily-managed weapon set, and seems to be tailor-made for the C-ERPPC. The C-ERPPC deals 10 damage in its primary bolt – just enough damage to destroy anything it scores a crit against. Projectile speed helps aim the weapon at longer ranges, requiring less lead for long shots while the gun’s own ridiculous range works into the increased sensor and zoom levels. As well, at only six tons and two crits, the C-ERPPC is a compact weapon which leaves space available for the very bulky targeting computer.

Already, we have a system which can make for a surprisingly effective distance ‘Mech. Consider: a Mk. VII targeting computer with David’s listed values (for purposes of discussion), a Clan Active Probe, and a Sensor Range module. This boosts active sensor range to 1260 meters – a very significant figure for a ‘Mech with Clan-spec ER PPCS. It also offers double the acquisition speed for target paperdoll information, allowing quick analysis of enemies – you’ll have their paperdoll and be planning your attack well before the enemy is even able to actively target you. You have better zoom, and even your backup C-ERMLs can score damage ticks (if very small ones) at over a thousand meters (900 +(1.15*900) = 1035 upper maximum range for CERML).

Still…for all of that, the computer takes up seven slots and seven tons, simply to offer what are nice-but-not-crucial advantages in distance combat. In close the TC is a total drag, and even in its optimal ranges, it takes up primary-weapon levels of space and tonnage. Even its biggest/most dangerous effect – the increased crit chance – is of only moderate value as crits require you to be hitting unarmored sections.

Or do they?

We are now at the heart of my proposal, which would give the Clans a unique and powerful answer to poptarts, as well as turn the Targeting Computer from a nichey gimmick into a deeply feared piece of equipment (without making it mandatory, the way ECM is mandatory on anything that can mount it).

Instead of a +% chance to trigger a normal critical hit, why not allow the targeting computer to offer a chance to score a through-armor crit, and thusly a chance to destroy equipment even in armored sections of a ‘Mech?

Thought experiment: rather than a 25% improved crit chance against unarmored components, which no one really cares about anyways since unarmored components are shortly food anyways, the targeting computer offers a 10% chance per single strike (PPC, autocannon, Gauss), or a rising percentage chance (lasers held on target), to score critical damage through armor. This would let TC-equipped ‘Mechs make up for their lesser weight of firepower by potentially stripping weapons and equipment away from their enemies at any time, forcing players to run more conservatively against TC-equipped ‘Mechs and offering a unique edge to the Clans.

Poptarts would have to be wary of taking high-speed, armor-penetrating C-ERPPC and C-Gauss shots any time they showed their face or risk losing their weapons early. Everyone else is encouraged to push closer in against clan ‘Mechs so that their advantage in raw weight of firepower overturns the TC ‘Mech’s armor penetration abilities and ranged advantage. You start seeing a triumvirate develop – poptarts trying to smash brawlers before they can get into weapons range without losing weapons to TC countersniping, TC snipers looking to defang poptarts and strip weapons out of brawlers early and gain an edge in the late game, and brawlers looking to come to grips with either other category in order to bring overwhelming weight of firepower to bear.

The nightmare situation of a TC jump sniper is dealt with by the fact that the higher-rated targeting computers which can be semi-reliably counted on to do the job are heavy and bulky; trying to pack jump jets and a high-level TC into the same ‘Mech, alongside an effective armament, is generally going to force some nasty compromises somewhere. Popsnipers using Mk. III and below TCs are basically just hoping for hax rather than seriously trying for through-armor crits – when they get that hax it will certainly suck, but hey. This isn’t so much a way to smash the poptart meta as it is a method to add an interesting new gimmick to MWO.

As an example, I present The ‘Mech: [TBR-(FC)-H “Heartseeker”]

By the standards of Timber Wolves, the Heartseeker is horribly outgunned. I can and have mounted 2x CERPPC, 1x CGauss, and 2xCERSL on a Timber Wolf before without compromising armor – this thing feels anemic even by most medium standards…except it doesn’t. If targeting computers worked the way proposed in the above spiel, you’d have to fear losing equipment to this thing even with untouched armor, from 800 meters out. It’d be able to find you, lock you, and mark you for allies to find from nearly 1300 meters out, and its medium frogging lasers can deal ‘WTF?!’ damage ticks from (just) outside LRM range. With 19 DHS it runs about as cool as a 2xC-ERPPC ‘Mech is going to, and it’s got plenty of endurance in its C-AMS. Certainly, the ‘Mech would be at a pretty serious disadvantage in close combat, but that’s all right. That disadvantage is the price it pays for its ability to potentially shoot out your AC/5 with the first hit I land on you from well outside your own effective range.

So, there’s my notion for how the TC may be improved to help defuse the poptart meta a bit, and to add an interesting new dimension to regular long-range gameplay. Anyone else have any ideas? Objections, as I’m quite certain there will be? Names one feels I must be called? Let me know. Let’s discuss. At least until I can get home and see if Santa left me presents/the game servers are still online.

Edited by 1453 R, 17 June 2014 - 05:01 PM.


#2 Quizzical Coconut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:33 PM

They probably don't want such a system because it'd feel unfair to have a perfectly good mech stripped before it even got to play, even if the mech wielding the targeting computer was compromised in loadout (the direwolf would hardly feel the tonnage lost). I'd suggest the armor piercing crit chance to be inversely related to armor value, which would still allow critting before armor destruction, but not immediate loss of weapons. (the base crit chance might need to be increased by the targeting computer for this to be an effective feature.) In a way the feature would be minimized in importance with these changes, but I (and many others) would rather not have a match decided based on the luck of someones targeting computer.

#3 Levi Porphyrogenitus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 4,763 posts
  • LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:39 PM

Through armor crits are bad and should never happen.

#4 Col Jaime Wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:09 PM

bad idea. what your saying would allow 1 shot wonders in anything boating 4 C-ERPPC. IS mechs cannot lose even 1 torso with an XL and even things like clan mechs could die to 1 lucky CT shot, which wouldnt be that lucky with 4 C-ERPPC.

in a word no. horrible terribad idea. we should never have weapons that ignore armor or they will be the only weapon used.

#5 Quizzical Coconut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:17 PM

There's a difference between a critical hit and critical damage. I believe he was suggesting component destruction through armor, not critical damage through armor.

#6 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 18 June 2014 - 05:10 AM

All I have to say is:

Target Lead Indicator

Its not hard to do now. And it wasn't hard to do in 1999.

#7 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,745 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 08:51 AM

Worse idea than the targeting computer being seven tons and seven slots of Active Probe booster?

The lead indicator pip is an obnoxious idea since the lead distance is different for every weapon, and also does no good whatsoever to a pilot who already knows how to lead his shots. And yes, I was speaking of component destruction through armor rather than internal damage. Even then, keeping the chances as low-but-possible would keep people on their toes around TC 'Mechs and give the targeting computer a real reason to exist without necessarily breaking things wide open. Even designs like that Timber Wolf of mine above, meant to make as brutally effective use of the TC as possible outside a Warhawk, can't count on through-armor component kills...but the specter of it could help bring the thing into games.

Besides. The critical hit system in this game is nice and juicy - it'd be cool to use it more, instead of simply retaining everything you own until such time as you die. let the TC snipers poke at your guts through armor every now and then - you'll learn to BattleTech better :D

#8 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:41 AM

Might make shooting AC ammo laden based Mechs more fun to shoot at. :blink: What armor? BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! LOL!

P.S. Oh wait. PPC/Gauss meta returns...

#9 Pygar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,070 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:58 AM

I think we should at least wait until they have been fully implemented and see how they actually work before we declare them worthless as they are proposed now.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users