25 replies to this topic

[Thunder Child]

Most of us have heard the complaint at least once. "LRMs wouldn't be so bad if PGI hadn't given us free C3".

People seem to assume that C3 was some magic box that allowed LRMs to be fired indirectly, but this is not the case. LRMs have ALWAYS (well, since The Battletech Compendium, at least) had the ability to fire indirectly, with the aid of a spotter.

What C3 ACTUALLY did, was allow Inner Sphere mechs to compete on a nearly even footing with Clan mechs, in terms of weapon ranges.
Yes, they payed a tonnage Tax (5tons for a Master unit, 1ton for a Slave unit), but it allowed them to fire Long Range Shots as though they were Short Range shots, provided a member of the C3 Unit was within Short Range.
Now, in TT, this meant that the Weapon Skill Modifier was reduced from +4, to +0. I realise that MWO is based on "Skill", rather than random Numbers, which is why, if C3 were to be implemented, what it would actually do in MWO would be more to extend the Optimal Ranges of a weapon.

The closest comparative I can make, is that in TT, if you fired an AC20 at a Target 9 hexes away, you got a +4 modifier to hit. If an ally within 3 hexes of your target was on the same C3 network as you, and you fired that AC20, your modifier would be +0, because you're using your Allies Targeting data (ballistic trajectory plotting for autocannons and improved beam coherency for lasers, due to multiple data reference points, not to mention the 5 tons of processing power on the command mech).
To translate this into MWO, how I would see it working would be, if a C3 ally was within 270m of your target (and they had the same target locked), YOUR AC20 would hit as though you were within 270m, dealing full damage. Even if you were up to 540m away. Basically, C3 would allow you to calculate your Optimal Range based on the nearest C3 equipped Ally. That said, Line of Sight and Maximum Range restrictions still apply. Food for thought.

TL:DR. Please stop blaming the poor C3 unit for LRMs. It was designed to buff all weapons, and would balance IS against the Clans nicely, if PGI ever decides to implement it.

Edit:Spelling

Edited by Thunder Child, 20 August 2014 - 12:20 AM.

[Reitrix]

The issue i have with the Target Info Sharing in general is that if you get seen by one 'mech, all he has to do is press R and his entire team instantly knows exactly where you are.

If you needed C3 Master/Slave Units in order to share that minimap data, You'd see very successful flanks, as getting seen by an individual 'mech does not give your location away to 11 other 'Mechs, Unless of course, the pilot who saw you calls it out in chat.

It would let a Lance that snuck in behind a camping force actually deal some heavy damage before the enemy team really knows whats happening, Since your intended target is not now instantly revealing you to his team.

[Davers]

Reitrix, on 20 August 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:

The issue i have with the Target Info Sharing in general is that if you get seen by one 'mech, all he has to do is press R and his entire team instantly knows exactly where you are.

If you needed C3 Master/Slave Units in order to share that minimap data, You'd see very successful flanks, as getting seen by an individual 'mech does not give your location away to 11 other 'Mechs, Unless of course, the pilot who saw you calls it out in chat.

It would let a Lance that snuck in behind a camping force actually deal some heavy damage before the enemy team really knows whats happening, Since your intended target is not now instantly revealing you to his team.

There was "indirect fire" before there was C3.

[Thunder Child]

Understandable, and a valid complaint with the way the sensor systems work in MWO. Of course, ECM does that job nicely at the moment, with it's Cloak of Invisibility*.

I'm merely trying to point out that the poor C3 system is not the culprit. And that if PGI implemented it for IS, they would not have to nerf the Clan Mechs so severely (well, except that PuGs would never be able to get a C3 network up and running, so qq would continue).

*Disclaimer: Cloak of Invisibility does not actually make you invisible to the Mark I Sensor system installed on Humans. Only to the Mark II Sensor Systems installed on Battlemechs.

[Reitrix]

Davers, on 20 August 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

There was "indirect fire" before there was C3.

My post said nothing about indirect fire, nor was it implying anything about it.

It was entirely about how much battlefield information is given to a team just by pressing R.

[Davers]

Reitrix, on 20 August 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:

My post said nothing about indirect fire, nor was it implying anything about it.

It was entirely about how much battlefield information is given to a team just by pressing R.

Information is good. Lack of information leads to indecisiveness and generally boring play styles. But I would have liked it if there was a bit more "Information Warfare" in the game as well.

[Thunder Child]

And how much battlefield information can be denied by ECM. It would be nice if we had more than just all or nothing. Maybe this Information Warfare thing that they talked about once. I believe it's sharing a trunk in the Laurentian Abyss with Role Warfare.

Edited by Thunder Child, 20 August 2014 - 12:58 AM.

[Reitrix]

Thunder Child, on 20 August 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

And how much battlefield information can be denied by ECM. It would be nice if we had more than just all or nothing. Maybe this Information Warfare thing that they talked about once. I believe it's sharing a trunk in the Laurentian Abyss with Role Warfare.

Yeah ... The entire Sensor/ECM thing needs a total overhaul.

I just want a working in game equippable C3 system, just so we have a reason for 'Mechs like the badass Tai-Sho
>_>

[Cyborne Elemental]

I would much prefer that targeting method to what we have now.
Being Lance shared targeting only.

Command Console on squad leader or a C3 slave links up to the Squad leader of the other lances.
Have it a little more ordered, and with appropriate ranges for target sharing.

Its annoying that you can get in a 1v1 fight with a guy, but his entire team will be launching missles up your butt while you're fighting him.

Its one of the biggest problems with LRM balance in MWO as far as I'm concerned.

You get targeted by 1 guy, everyone on the OP4 knows exactly where you are and happy trigger finger
premature eclickulation goes into effect, and you either run for your life, or get mauled by LRM 9000!

Edited by Mister D, 20 August 2014 - 02:26 AM.

[Noesis]

With C3 maxing out the range as per the OPs proposal I think it would make the IS ballistics weapons far too OP. Especially if there effective full damage extends out to max range.

Highlighted below is the AC20 chart. (Effective ranges for other weapons would of course allow an extension of their damage for greater range of course. And as you can see these extend better capability over the clans for max damage quite noticeably.




A more acceptable method would be like the TC/CC bonuses where a smaller percentage is applied to ballistic speeds and ranges are extended by a smaller amount, perhaps also including critical chances. This then also in keeping with the effective contribution tonnage wise as per similar electronics gear. These mechanics already exist and would make the tech more readily appliable with known effects to some extent that could provide bonuses similar to Clan Targeting computers. The only difference being is that the bonus would apply when you are also targetting someone else target who also has C3 equipped. (Not proposing to change how shared information effects things). This would simply make C3 a scaleable box of tricks that could offer increases in effectiveness with tonnage like Clan TCs but remaining small percentage gains to emulate the improved targeting.

A more interesting feature that C3 could provide could be to allow "shared" targetting in that a master C3 box could paint a target like TAG with a red dot but perhaps with a blue or green circle. This could then more readily allow co-ordinated fire to similar hit boxes without having to use audible or text commands. The IS mech with a slave module would simply try to aim at the dot to help co-ordinate concentrated fire.

Edited by Noesis, 20 August 2014 - 08:41 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Davers, on 20 August 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

There was "indirect fire" before there was C3.

Yes, but spotting means either you forgo your own weapons fire or add a +1 (bad) modifier for both you and the LRM mech. Spotting adds a +1 modifier by default. Spotting usually happens at longer range. Spotting means the LRM mech adds both your and his movement penalties to firing.

Indirect LRM fire in BT is so inaccurate that it's an *extremely* niche tactic unless you have NARC or TAG and the appropriate LRM munitions to make use of them.

[Blakkstar]

C3 should be implemented for IS mechs to be a balance to Clan tech. It would have to work a little different though since the master/slave arrangement wouldn't really be feasible with mechs getting randomly dropped into games. Here's how I think it could work:

1. Weighs 1 ton per class of mech: light = 1, medium = 2, etc. No master/slave function.

2. Allows for longer radar decay time for the whole team when a C3 mech target-locks an opponent.

3. C3 target lock acts as TAG for LRM accuracy

4. Instant paper-doll readout for target mech

5. Allows sharing of seismic sensor data between teammates

6. Can be jammed by ECM within a small radius

I also think non-C3 LRM indirect fire should get a nerf, so the spotting mech has to face the target like it is maintaining its own missile lock. That makes spotting more risky, and also widens the gap with the Clans so C3 computers become more valuable for IS mechs.

That would basically make C3 mandatory for anybody playing IS mechs, but it would balance the game while giving each side a more distinct style. Clans are hard-hitting soloists, while IS gets more out of teamwork.

[General Taskeen]

^

And

7. Only TAG and/or NARC allow indirect fire on the target that is affected by either of those

8. ECM shut downs NARC beacon to prevent auto-seeking NARC-SRM's and NARC-LRM's/Regular LRM's. and does not prevent LRM's from achieving a lock in LOS

I.E. how previous games worked for the better, also LRM's with no minimum range so they are still useful if your team can't get any proper indirect support.

[Gyrok]

Thunder Child, on 20 August 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

Most of us have heard the complaint at least once. "LRMs wouldn't be so bad if PGI hadn't given us free C3".

People seem to assume that C3 was some magic box that allowed LRMs to be fired indirectly, but this is not the case. LRMs have ALWAYS (well, since The Battletech Compendium, at least) had the ability to fire indirectly, with the aid of a spotter.

What C3 ACTUALLY did, was allow Inner Sphere mechs to compete on a nearly even footing with Clan mechs, in terms of weapon ranges.
Yes, they payed a tonnage Tax (5tons for a Master unit, 1ton for a Slave unit), but it allowed them to fire Long Range Shots as though they were Short Range shots, provided a member of the C3 Unit was within Short Range.
Now, in TT, this meant that the Weapon Skill Modifier was reduced from +4, to +0. I realise that MWO is based on "Skill", rather than random Numbers, which is why, if C3 were to be implemented, what it would actually do in MWO would be more to extend the Optimal Ranges of a weapon.

The closest comparative I can make, is that in TT, if you fired an AC20 at a Target 9 hexes away, you got a +4 modifier to hit. If an ally within 3 hexes of your target was on the same C3 network as you, and you fired that AC20, your modifier would be +0, because you're using your Allies Targeting data (ballistic trajectory plotting for autocannons and improved beam coherency for lasers, due to multiple data reference points, not to mention the 5 tons of processing power on the command mech).
To translate this into MWO, how I would see it working would be, if a C3 ally was within 270m of your target (and they had the same target locked), YOUR AC20 would hit as though you were within 270m, dealing full damage. Even if you were up to 540m away. Basically, C3 would allow you to calculate your Optimal Range based on the nearest C3 equipped Ally. That said, Line of Sight and Maximum Range restrictions still apply. Food for thought.

TL:DR. Please stop blaming the poor C3 unit for LRMs. It was designed to buff all weapons, and would balance IS against the Clans nicely, if PGI ever decides to implement it.

Edit:Spelling

Actually, the C3 targeting computer makes it possible to shoot LRMs indirectly with only target information from the mech that is spotting. The rest of what you say has some relevance, however, without TAG or NARC on target, LRMs cannot fire indirectly without C3 master + slave units (unless, as noted above, the spotter takes an entire turn not firing weapons to spot).

Edited by Gyrok, 20 August 2014 - 09:31 AM.

[Andross Deverow]

Mister D, on 20 August 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

I would much prefer that targeting method to what we have now.
Being Lance shared targeting only.

Command Console on squad leader or a C3 slave links up to the Squad leader of the other lances.
Have it a little more ordered, and with appropriate ranges for target sharing.

Its annoying that you can get in a 1v1 fight with a guy, but his entire team will be launching missles up your butt while you're fighting him.

Its one of the biggest problems with LRM balance in MWO as far as I'm concerned.

You get targeted by 1 guy, everyone on the OP4 knows exactly where you are and happy trigger finger
premature eclickulation goes into effect, and you either run for your life, or get mauled by LRM 9000!

100% agree with this. the shared targeting is the root cause of alot of the games problems and the LRM issue as it stands. Shared targeting should go away. We have UAV's and NARC right now thats plenty for someone who just wants to sit back and boat LRM's. Make em use thier TAG and target their own with LoS.

Regards

Edited by Andross Deverow, 20 August 2014 - 09:39 AM.

[Noesis]

Gyrok, on 20 August 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Actually, the C3 targeting computer makes it possible to shoot LRMs indirectly with only target information from the mech that is spotting. The rest of what you say has some relevance, however, without TAG or NARC on target, LRMs cannot fire indirectly without C3 master + slave units (unless, as noted above, the spotter takes an entire turn not firing weapons to spot).

C3 simply acts as a TAG unit for additional benefit with LRM IDF. And you do NOT need C3 for IDF with LRMs.

Page 131, Total Warfare:




Page 111: Total Warfare:

[Blakkstar]

General Taskeen, on 20 August 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

^

And

7. Only TAG and/or NARC allow indirect fire on the target that is affected by either of those

8. ECM shut downs NARC beacon to prevent auto-seeking NARC-SRM's and NARC-LRM's/Regular LRM's. and does not prevent LRM's from achieving a lock in LOS

I.E. how previous games worked for the better, also LRM's with no minimum range so they are still useful if your team can't get any proper indirect support.

Actually, IS LRMs should keep minimum range as a tradeoff for their indirect fire superiority. Clan LRMs should have no minimum range, but also a flat arc that makes them difficult to use for (dishonorable) indirect fire. This would tilt the whole meta to balance the Clan's advantage in direct fire weapons, and push them into using a more aggressive playstyle...exposing them to concentrated missile fire until they achieve LOS to bring what's left of their superior firepower to bear.

Hey, another problem solved by referring to the Battletech rules and lore that PGI consistently ignores. Go figure.

[Strum Wealh]

Strum Wealh, on 23 February 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Then again, maybe they'll implement C3 Networks (with the associated C3 Command Units and C3 Slave Units), with data-sharing capabilities beyond what is currently available through the BattleMechs' basic data-sharing systems.
Doing so would open up variants like the MAL-C Mauler (a 3051 variant, based on the MAL-1R, that trades one ton of AC ammo for a C3 Slave Unit) and the PNT-C Panther (a 3051 variant, based on the PNT-10K, that trades the Artemis IV FCS for a C3 Slave Unit) and the CP-11-C Cyclops (a 3050 variant, based on the CP-11-A, that trades its LRM-10 launcher for a C3 Command Unit and two additional tons of armor).

Potential capabilities of a hypothetical MWO C3 Network:

• Decreased target info acquisition time (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves base sensor range (similar to Beagle, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Beagle's 25%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the lock-on-time and tracking strength of LRMs (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 25% or so, versus Artemis' 50%, Narc's 50%, and TAG's 50%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves the grouping size of SRM volleys (similar to Artemis, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 15% or so, versus Artemis' 34%) for all members of the network.
  
• Improves convergence speed of torso and arm weapons (similar to the "Pinpoint" 'Mech Tree Elite Efficiency, but to a lesser degree - perhaps 8% or so, versus Pinpoint's 15%) for all members of the network.
  
• All C3 bonuses stack with similar bonuses from other equipment.
  
• All C3 bonuses are active so long as one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Command Unit (5.0 tons, 5 critical slots) OR one's 'Mech is carrying a functioning C3 Slave Unit (1.0 tons, 1 critical slot) that can reach a lancemate's functioning C3 Command Unit.
  
• C3 Networks would automatically configure themselves at the start of a match (with the Lance Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence if there are multiple C3 Command Units, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Lance Commander, and the Company Commander's C3 Command Unit taking precedence among the Lance Commanders, or precedence being randomly assigned if there is no designated Company Commander).
  
• C3 systems have no ECM-countering ability, and members of a C3 network may be cut off from the network (and lose their C3-granted bonuses) when covered by a hostile ECM field.

In this way, the proposed C3 Network provides a wide breadth of benefits to a Lance or Company, but the benefits to the individual units/players do not necessarily supplant the places of dedicated equipment - C3 becomes the proverbial "jack of all benefits, master of none", and its effectiveness both increases with coordination and promotes coordination and communication.
Additionally, its presence opens up the availability of certain 'Mech variants (see here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Command Unit, and here for 'Mechs with at least one variant equipped with a C3 Slave Unit), and it would also serve as something of an IS counterpart to the Clans' Targeting Computer (which is fixed equipment on the Masakari chassis and pod-mounted equipment on the Puma Prime).

Thoughts?

[Noesis]

Blakkstar, on 20 August 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

Hey, another problem solved by referring to the Battletech rules and lore that PGI consistently ignores. Go figure.

See above. Actually it is working as intended. Go figure.

[Zyllos]

That is why I modified a suggestion post I created to add more depth to LRMs.

I originally made it where you don't share targets at all unless you have C3.

Now, I made it where you only share targets if you keep a target selected for longer than 5.0s. That means you have to select a target for an extended period of time before it's shared. None of this "fast cycling between targets to share them" business.

This also makes LRMs harder to lay down on someone that is quick moving between cover by just a spotter, unless they have C3, TAG, NARC or if the LRM user has direct LOS to the moving target.

C3 ended up being a system that not only immediately shares the target a player selected, they also share all spotted targets (triangle over a target but is not selected) to all other C3 users. At least in my suggestion post, which is here: http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-changes/

Edited by Zyllos, 20 August 2014 - 09:49 AM.