220 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Sprouticus, on 18 September 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Question for you, how would you integrate the following:

Artemis (tighter spread still? more speed?)
Radar Dep module (get rid of?)
Radar Range module
Target decay module (and target decay in general)
360 module?

I think that for Artemis, everything would work pretty much as it does today. The changes I'm describing here would basically just remove most of the indirect fire capabilities of LRM's, and in those cases Artemis didn't do anything anyway.

The radar range modules could work as they do today.

The target decay and derp modules would probably be eliminated, as would the 360 module, since they would no longer really be relevant.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

STOP YOUR WHINE!

ECM protect's mechs from being LURMed. It's o'kay now. It only butthurts LURM-NOOBS.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Hagoromo Gitsune, on 19 September 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

STOP YOUR WHINE!

ECM protect's mechs from being LURMed. It's o'kay now. It only butthurts LURM-NOOBS.

This post was certainly productive towards making this game better.

That out of the way, it sounds like the OP pines for MechWarrior 4... I am actually enjoying how sensors and missiles work, I just believe individual systems should be tweaked at the same time rather than turning the dial on one mechanic and wondering how the interconnected systems affected by the change became so overpowered.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 19 September 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

That out of the way, it sounds like the OP pines for MechWarrior 4

That's because MW4 had the better game design, it just failed when it came to the numbers and a few other minor areas (engine tweaking in MWO is better).

[VanillaG]

Sprouticus, on 18 September 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Question for you, how would you integrate the following:

Artemis (tighter spread still? more speed?)
Radar Dep module (get rid of?)
Radar Range module
Target decay module (and target decay in general)
360 module?

Artemis would still provide a tighter missile pattern. As for the modules, you could re-purpose them into providing modifiers for active and passive sensor modes:

• Radar Dep - reduces detection range of mech using active sensors
  
• Target Decay - reduces detection range of mech using passive sensors
  
• Radar Range - increases active sensor range
  
• 360 Module - increases passive sensor range.

[Glythe]

There's only 1 core problem with your entire system. MWO was designed from the ground up so that you need visual sight to have a lock. They specifically didn't want you to have behind hill radar locks. That thought process went into designing all the maps.

Imagine playing canyon network and your entire team is always lit because scout mechs are pinging you with radar. This is exactly what they did not want. They want scouting to be an active process. You have to be in the line of fire to reveal mechs to allies.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 19 September 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

This post was certainly productive towards making this game better.

That out of the way, it sounds like the OP pines for MechWarrior 4... I am actually enjoying how sensors and missiles work, I just believe individual systems should be tweaked at the same time rather than turning the dial on one mechanic and wondering how the interconnected systems affected by the change became so overpowered.

I think that you guy are got to scared of SDR-5D with 3xMPL and ECM that crap reached pants instantly.

[VanillaG]

Glythe, on 19 September 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

There's only 1 core problem with your entire system. MWO was designed from the ground up so that you need visual sight to have a lock. They specifically didn't want you to have behind hill radar locks. That thought process went into designing all the maps.

Imagine playing canyon network and your entire team is always lit because scout mechs are pinging you with radar. This is exactly what they did not want. They want scouting to be an active process. You have to be in the line of fire to reveal mechs to allies.

Does it really matter if the other team know where you are it if they can't hit you? The only way that they can be attacked is if they are in direct LoS or by indirect fire with NARC. TAG also allows indirect fire but the TAG mech requires direct LoS.

[Roland]

Glythe, on 19 September 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

There's only 1 core problem with your entire system. MWO was designed from the ground up so that you need visual sight to have a lock. They specifically didn't want you to have behind hill radar locks. That thought process went into designing all the maps.

Imagine playing canyon network and your entire team is always lit because scout mechs are pinging you with radar. This is exactly what they did not want. They want scouting to be an active process. You have to be in the line of fire to reveal mechs to allies.

The thing is though, as anyone who played MW4 can tell you, non-LOS radar actually enables an incredibly active process... in many ways, more active and thoughtful than the current system.

I think folks are under the mistaken impression that non-LOS radar will just let you always know where everyone is, and that is most definitely not the case... not even close.

[InspectorG]

Good article.

Glad to see reasonable discussion on the ECM/BAP/LRM dynamic recently.

[Chronojam]

WM Quicksilver, on 18 September 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

Roland, I do have a question, I just skimmed the past couple pages and I think it got touched on but never fully asked or answered.
With regards to target info gathering, I seem to remember that MW4 gave you the most basic info (location and a picture of the mech moving) until your crosshairs met the target for even a split second. Would Target Info still be gathered in a similar fashion as it does now (LOS nets you more information) where as until you get LOS to target, all you know is pretty much the location?
This sort of detail might supress some fears people have about this radar as well clarify something for me because this is kind of important to scouts (I like to know what mech I just discovered).

This is the sort of thing I was talking about with my last post. Being unable to have line of sight to a mech would limit your information; you'd know there was a mech there and give it a target ID (e.g. A, B, C), but not what type -- just a radar contact.

Other gear could improve that; seismic could identify weight class even through terrain (e.g. Heavy Mech A, Medium Mech B), or a UAV could let you have an improved aerial picture to help in an urban fight (Cataphract A, Hunchback B).

Then we get into the scenario where your sensors can directly scan a mech and boom, it's a Swayback with a laser loadout and he's hurt. Maybe he's got gear to interfere with your ability to check his weapons and health, so you only know the variant and not his loadout and need to get close enough to see he's missing an arm.

Then we get into whether or not your mech is allowed to share your data picture with others (C3 Slave) and whether or not your mech can pick up a full data picture (C3 Master - your lance commander should bring one!). Maybe you can't tell what a mech is precisely, but you can see that tiny scout up on the hill, and TAG him from behind -- missile lock for your LRM guys.

Edited by Chronojam, 19 September 2014 - 08:46 AM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

I like the majority of this, I'd still have ECM and BAP have more electronic warfare effects, but not the current stealth bubble or immunity to missile lock. Adding a bit more complexity to it and have them cancel each other out it seems all appropriate.

[Roland]

Other things that end up being enabled in cases where you have non-LOS targeting are things like decoys, where you could potentially deploy equipment to generate false contacts.

With only visual contacts, you can't really make effective decoys, because you can just look at it and say, "That's obviously not a mech, and isn't shooting at me."

[taijutsufl]

OK, first let me say I did not read all 8 pages of posts. I did read some of them, and the OP sounds like a good set of ideas to me.

Here are two suggestions that may fit on top of what was originally posted and the proposed mods that I read about:

Unlocked LRMs don't cause an alarm on the target: Not sure if this was implicit in the OP or not, but if LRMs are dumb fired, the target should get no warning (other than visually seeing LRMS in flight).

Counter Battery Fire: if a pilot/mech with LRMs visually observes the ascension arc of enemy LRMs, the targeting computer should be able to calculate where on the ground that fire originated from and give the pilot a target pip to fire LRMs at. These would be non-locked LRMs, so if the target moves, the missles won't track.

I appologize if these suggestions were already discussed.

[Roland]

taijutsufl, on 19 September 2014 - 09:09 AM, said:

Unlocked LRMs don't cause an alarm on the target: Not sure if this was implicit in the OP or not, but if LRMs are dumb fired, the target should get no warning (other than visually seeing LRMS in flight).

Just to be clear here, as I've seen a few folks mention this.. I think there's a point of confusion here.

At no point in my post do I suggest anything about dumbfiring LRM's.

My suggestion was that LRM's would require direct LOS to lock on a target, and that such a locking could take place regardless of whether or not the target is actually held on radar.

That is, if you can see the target, even if it's outside radar range, you can achieve a lock just by holding the reticle over the mech.

Of course, this doesn't prevent dumbfiring missiles.. You can still do that, just like today.

[Rashhaverak]

Some good ideas in the OP, but also some problems.

Just how is targetting LRMs on mechs without a radar lock on supposed to work? If I have LOS to a mech, even without a radar lock-on, I can lock missiles on them? Doesn't that make LRMs the ultimate mech tracking device? I think this is a broken mechanic.

I disagree with any plan that attempts to eliminate indirect fire on LRMs. The ability to spot mechs for LRMs is a key part of scouting, and indirect fire has always been an attribute of LRMs.Trying to turn LRMs into a strictly direct fire weapon is not a good idea and the changes you propose would not balance LRMs versus direct fire weapons. Essentially, the OP changes would cripple LRM mechs and severely limit the viability of LRMs.I could see it now, I step out and start to lock LRMs and wham, there's the PPC-gauss-AC round, and the enemy is already stepping out. No lock, no fun.

One change to the OP plan that would improve the concept might be to have radar lock require LOS. You could have radar detect without LOS (similar to siesmic), but to lock a mech would require LOS, and mechs can share LOS radar locks. This would allow LRMs to continue to perform effectively ( and fire indirectly) and still allow radar to work without LOS.

[Zen Idiot]

if i saw this in 'patch notes' i would be a happy lil' mechwarrior.

[CharlieChap]

Yes me too.

I havn't read all 8 pages of posts but something that occurred to me when reading Rolands post was that if such changes were implimented, it would also be an opportunity to make seismic sensor a separate sensor mode also that only displayed seismic. (the module could just be a range increase).
Switching to Seismic Sensor mode would then be a tactical choice (as it is in the TT) not just a generic 'must have'.

Edited by CharlieChap, 19 September 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Delas Ting Usee]

@ROLAND,
I like what you're proposing but...how long/difficult is it for PGI to implement, do you think?
An if implemented in stages how long do you think?

[Gretik]

Feel it's worth chipping in that I approve of everything in his post!